Summary
Romania’s electoral commission barred far-right candidate Calin Georgescu from the presidential election without explanation.
Georgescu, who led polls with 40%, called the move “a direct blow to democracy” and plans to appeal. His supporters protested in Bucharest.
The constitutional court annulled his prior election win over alleged Russian interference, which he denies. He faces legal issues, including accusations of financing violations and extremist ties.
A vocal Trump supporter, Georgescu received backing from Trump officials, including Elon Musk and JD Vance, who condemned Romania’s actions.
Well, on one hand, I like the far-right getting some institutional push-back. On the other hand, I’m a little concerned with both the state of democracy — that such a candidate could get so many votes — and the disregard for the people’s vote — while there may have been significant Russian interference, to what extent should the courts intervene with what seems to be a genuinely popular candidate?
It’s a shitshow if you look at it closely. Basically he got so many votes because the ruling party wanted to try the pied piper strategy that gave the US Trump. That included giving his campaign illegal support, which invalidated the previous election. And now they’re just outright going to ban him. They’re just throwing away democracy and pretending they’re saving democracy.
Not that I want the guy to win or be anywhere near power, but it’s a strategy that will backfire eventually and has in many countries. But I guess the alternative is to actually deliver for the people and that’s obviously unacceptable.
You misspelled “deliver for Putin”. A lot of countries have laws against foreign influence attacks on their elections.
While I’m sure Putin loves this candidate as well, he was supported by another party within the country. And by deliver for the people, I mean end austerity. If people all have housing, food, jobs, etc, they’re not going to fall for the far right playbook.
There is strong legal backing to this. Romania bars anyone with ties to or rhetoric similar to the Iron Guard (Romanian fascists) from running. Georgescu has strong ties to them, and he’s not even the only politician barred from running due to this for this election (Sosoaca).
Not to mention, their open ties to the fascist party running the USA is also quite problematic. Very very high chance of foreign interference.
Paradox of tolerance. Don’t fall for it. Fascists do not now, and will never, get the benefit of the doubt.
He was talking more about the will of the people, but okay.
Your feelings are more important.
There hasn’t been any will of the people expressed yet. The guy is a Russian asset with zero spine and he’s been eliminated from the race. The people will get to express their will with the other candidates, of which they’ll have many.
More lies from the left.
It’s a tough call to make, isn’t it? Baring a candidate is inherently undemocratic, surely in a perfect democracy any candidate who is receiving votes should be considered. However given the current state of global politics, it’s also equally true that any candidate who is being manipulated by an outside government (such as allegedly Russia/USA in this example) should be restricted for the very same reasoning of allowing the voters to have their say without interference or manipulation by people who have an interest in the election being decided undemocraticly.
Ultimately, the decision to prevent any candidate, popular or not, is one that should not be taken lightly. And yet must also be a decision that can and should be made under the right conditions to protect the democratic nature of elections.
I sincerely hope that the people who made the decision in this case explain their reasoning publicly, and have a very good justification for doing so.
It all depends on who you ask.
If you ask the average leftist on English-speaking internet forums, they will say the will of the people should always be disregarded in favor of the will of the leftist. They really are that childish.
It’s a tough question but I don’t think it’s hypocritical.
A good government serves two roles: (a) to protect the rights of its citizens, and (b) to enact policy that is representative of its citizens (as shown by popular vote and opinion, usually). But no policy should be allowed to supersede a real right, no matter how popular.
So if a candidate is going to subjugate rights as a matter of policy, that government is right to bar them, even if that is undemocratic. Minds can differ on what rights have primacy, and how nuanced those rights are, but I think it’s coherent.
This is the most reasonable assessment in my opinion. The very same people down voting you would go apeshit if the Supreme Court barred what they deemed a far left candidate. If people don’t like right-wing politicians then they should demand a candidate passionate about popular policies to oppose them. However barring or attempting to, like Democrats did with Bernie, & has other candidates during debates & on the ballots, helped give us Trump.
Imagine if there was a candidate in the 60s that was obviously funded by the CCP and supported by its propaganda machine, which was plotting to surrender its country to the CCP, while being a vocal supporter of planned economics and thumping Mao’s little red book like the Bible. I think a lot of leftists would agree that such a party, though far-left on its face at least, would have been undemocratic at its core and not in the interest of the country itself.
It is in my mind very misleading to try to use an analogy with Bernie Sanders. Sanders, AFAIK, is not interested in upheaving democracy or selling out the country to Russia. This is fundamentally different from many current far-right parties in Eastern Europe.
Now, is it a wise strategy to straight up bar Georgescu’s party without explaining the reasoning as the article claims has been done? Perhaps not (though ample evidence supporting the decision has been provided previously by Romanian intelligence agencies). But one can understand why extreme measures might be called for to counter the electoral interference of a country that is actively invading your neighbor and has openly talked about wanting your country to become a puppet, too.
From ISW, "Georgescu has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership and “wisdom” and claimed in 2022 that Ukraine is an “invented state.” ( https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/likely-kremlin-backed-election-interference-against-romania-threatens-bucharests ) Could you find a similarly extreme and anti-democratic view espoused by a “far-left” leader that you think non-tankie leftists commonly support? If you still don’t see how extreme Georgescu’s party is and why they can be rightfully called a Russian agent I highly recommend checking out the ISW article, actually it’s well worth reading either way. Georgescu was even too explicit a Russian stooge for other ultranationalists to stomach (for a while).