By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
Disqualifying candidates from an electoral race is typically something that happens in autocratic regimes or in systems that some political scientists describe as competitive authoritarianism. In such systems, multiparty elections exist, but those in power maintain full control over the political process. This means that they can exclude a “troublesome candidate” in a more or less arbitrary manner.
Such actions are much rarer in democratic countries, particularly those that are members of the European Union. However, this is precisely what recently happened in one of them – Romania. There, the first round of presidential elections, in which the far-right candidate Călin Georgescu surprisingly won, was annulled. Subsequently, he was banned from running in the re-election. The justification for such drastic action was alleged electoral fraud, irregularities, and non-transparent financing of his campaign, in which Russia was supposedly involved.
This ban was supported by “moderate” political forces, claiming they had eliminated a “dangerous pro-Russian extremist”. However, this raises serious concerns, as it interferes with the very essence of a democratic system. The right to run for office (so-called passive electoral rights) is one of its cornerstones, as it allows voters a real choice between different political alternatives. Therefore, this right should only be restricted in extreme cases and under strictly defined conditions. A candidate can be disqualified only if they have committed a serious offense – such as actively working to overthrow the constitutional order by force or being proven to be an agent of a foreign power, particularly one that threatens national security. However, in such cases, the evidence must be beyond any reasonable doubt, at the level required for a conviction in a court of law. Allegations that a campaign was financed in a “non-transparent manner” should not, and must not, be sufficient grounds for such a radical measure. Even less so should accusations that a candidate holds “inappropriate” views.
From a democratic perspective, Georgescu’s views (and those of similar figures) are undoubtedly problematic. This is particularly true regarding his sympathies for Putin’s autocratic and aggressive regime, which poses a major security threat to Europe. Likewise, glorifying past dictatorships (such as the one in Romania under Marshal Antonescu) is incompatible with democratic values. However, he is far from the only European politician who supports Putin or harbours nostalgia for authoritarian regimes – many such figures exist elsewhere, including in Romania itself. So far, no concrete evidence has been presented to the public proving that Georgescu is truly a Putin operative or that Russia directly interfered in Romania’s presidential elections.
Ironically, a declared Putinist has now experienced what has happened to many of Putin’s opponents – being barred from participating in elections by those in power. But this sets a very dangerous precedent. It could lead to ruling elites elsewhere being tempted to simply annul unfavourable election results and disqualify troublesome opponents – on the grounds that they “threaten democracy”. In reality, such practices pose the greatest threat to democracy itself.
The elimination of Georgescu was also a poor decision from a purely strategic-political perspective. Even though he won the first round of elections, it is quite likely that he would not have been elected in the end, as centre-left and centre-right parties would have united behind his moderate opponent. However, the actions taken against him have significantly boosted his popularity – while he received just over twenty percent of the vote in the election, recent polls show his support has surged to forty percent. It is entirely possible that such measures will only strengthen the very extremism that the established elites sought to suppress.
