Why Romania Just Canceled Its Presidential Election

The Romanian government is trying to guard against Russian election interference. But such a drastic, unexpected, and last-minute move risks undermining people’s faith in democracy.

By Veronica Anghel

December 2024

On December 6, the Romanian Constitutional Court made a startling decision: It canceled the country’s presidential elections just two days before the final round of voting. Until that moment, the court had reassured the country that it would allow the elections to proceed. Suddenly, it reversed course, citing a newly declassified intelligence report that pointed to Russian election interference on behalf of Călin Georgescu, an obscure far-right nationalist who unexpectedly became the favorite to win after the first round of voting. The court’s abrupt about-face threw Romania’s political landscape into chaos, stunning both domestic observers and the international community.

What is transpiring in Romania today reveals two key realities that echo more broadly.

First, Romanian authorities have laid bare the breadth and sophistication of Russia’s influence operations, exposing how readily democratic institutions can be undermined by hostile foreign forces. Romania’s inability to preempt such a large-scale breach of its election integrity, coupled with its delayed response to foreign meddling on behalf of a Russian-backed candidate, elicited swift and alarmed reactions from NATO partners. In his statement decrying Russian interference, U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken drew parallels to similar incidents in Moldova and Georgia, underlining the wider pattern.

Second, the confusion and distrust unleashed by this episode highlights a more unsettling truth: The European Union and NATO remain vulnerable to the fragility of their member states’ democratic foundations. This moment serves as a stark reminder that well-meaning actions — such as the court’s decision to halt a compromised election midstream — may nevertheless do grievous harm. In this instance, while the court kept the Romanian government from falling under Russian influence, such an opaque, drastic, and unexpected remedy can inadvertently steer a society toward profound turmoil.

The trade-offs between security and fundamental democratic principles can surface in many ways. For example, an analysis of the Romanian and Italian responses to the pandemic, with the concomitant trade-offs between public safety and democratic norms, can easily be compared to the threat of Russian interference. Such exogenous shocks, be they health crises or foreign meddling, incentivize ruling elites to adopt measures that sidestep institutional checks and balances, often with lasting consequences for democratic legitimacy. In this case, the Romanian Constitutional Court and national authorities, including the intelligence services that supported the decision to cancel the elections, must now justify these extreme steps. They face the pressing task of investigating and rooting out the pro-Russian forces behind the alleged crimes. The manner in which they do so may very well determine whether Romania’s democracy can withstand this test to its integrity.

A Win-Win for the Kremlin

At the heart of the court’s decision stands a declassified Romanian intelligence report. It details how Georgescu’s campaign was bolstered by Russian forces bent on subverting Romania’s national-security interests. The campaign’s social-media operations bore striking similarities to a known influence pattern — the “Brother next to Brother” social-media phenomenon that surged in Ukraine before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Alarmingly, Georgescu’s sudden rise from obscurity to worldwide trending status on TikTok, with no declared campaign expenses, raised immediate red flags. Faced with this evidence, the court chose to annul the elections it had previously certified.

Even if Moscow failed to install an overtly anti-NATO figure in Romania’s highest office, the Kremlin has still managed a subtler triumph. Doubt, anger, and disillusionment are now rippling through Romanian society, chipping away at trust in the system. Both front-runners, Georgescu and Elena Lasconi, contested the decision as illegal. The sizeable far-right parties who support Georgescu have come out with similar accusations, rallying their base against what they call the “corrupt establishment.” This is a classic Kremlin strategy: If a target state’s public becomes convinced that democratic processes are inherently corrupt or illegitimate, then Russia has successfully weakened the very foundations of that democracy. The timing of the court’s decision, coming after the Romanian diaspora had already begun voting, only magnifies this impact. The government’s response was reactive, undermining confidence that the state can safeguard its elections in the face of hybrid threats.

Just as troubling as the content of the intelligence report is the manner in which events have unfolded. The court’s sudden reversal — delivered virtually overnight, with scant explanations and after promising the election would move forward just the evening before — fuels an atmosphere of suspicion, leaving citizens, political parties, and international partners questioning the true balance of power behind the scenes. Stable democracy demands both vigilance against interference and a clear, consistent process for managing crises. Here Romania fell short on both fronts.

The Romanian Intelligence Service, which led the investigation, had previously downplayed the influence of rising extremist movements. In its public reports, the intelligence service concluded that attempts to form a nationalist movement posed no significant “risks to national security.” Yet the December 1 parliamentary elections told a different story: Far-right forces secured 35 percent of the seats, pushing their presidential candidate to the cusp of victory. This glaring discrepancy between intelligence assessments and political reality deepens public unease, calling into question the government’s ability to anticipate threats.

Georgescu, the candidate at the center of this turmoil, exemplifies the nexus of domestic extremism and foreign backing. Proposing an ethnocratic, nativist, and religiously fundamentalist state and extolling Romania’s interwar fascist leaders, Georgescu staunchly rejects Western alliances, denounces NATO membership, and dismisses any strategic value in supporting Ukraine. His platform resonates in a society already doubtful about engagement in regional security efforts. A 2024 survey by the European University Institute and the U.K. polling firm YouGov found that Romanians — along with Bulgarians and Hungarians — were the Europeans most opposed to aiding Ukraine. Many of these respondents who oppose aid to Ukraine view U.S. and NATO actions as a greater threat to stability than Russian ambitions—a popular piece of misinformation raging in some EU countries, which Georgescu skillfully harnessed to bolster his own legitimacy.

These extremist leanings play into a broader climate of conspiracy theories, notably around covid-19. Georgescu’s antivaccination stance speaks directly to an entrenched skepticism in Romanian society. According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Romania and Bulgaria record the lowest vaccination rates within the European Union, symbolizing a profound mistrust not only in public-health measures but in international collaboration more generally. In this charged environment, foreign interference, extremist ideologies, and conspiratorial thinking combine to form a potent challenge to Romania’s democratic resilience — revealing vulnerabilities that demand urgent and transparent remedies.

A Moment of Reckoning

Romania’s political crisis underscores a broader trend: the persistence of authoritarian regimes seeking to exploit democratic institutional vulnerabilities. The last-minute cancellation of an election — especially on the grounds of alleged foreign influence — is a stark reminder that the European Union project and NATO’s security umbrella are not absolute guarantees. Effective defenses against hybrid threats must be in place long before the moment of crisis arrives.

Romania now faces a profound challenge. The country must attempt to rebuild trust, restore the integrity of its democratic processes, and reassure both its citizens and its allies. The outcome will resonate beyond Romania’s borders, with implications for the resilience of democratic institutions across the region. As in so many recent crises on Europe’s eastern flank, the key question is whether the forces of openness, transparency, and the rule of law can prevail over manipulation, secrecy, and malicious interference. For now, the answer remains painfully uncertain.

Veronica Anghel is assistant professor at the Robert Schuman Center European University Institute.

Copyright © 2024 National Endowment for Democracy

Image credit: Andrei Pungovschi/Getty Images