Democracy is not 'dying in darkness'; it is currently perishing in the EU
Recent elections within the bloc and its satellite states have revealed a pronounced trend of ‘othering’ non-establishment candidates. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
Recent elections in the European bloc and its satellite states have revealed a vigorous ‘othering’ of non-establishment candidates.
What do Germany, Moldova, and Romania share? At first glance, they appear quite different.
Germany stands as a traditional, large, and still relatively prosperous member of the Cold War "West," boasting a population exceeding 83 million and a GDP of around $4.53 trillion. In stark contrast, Romania, an ex-Soviet satellite, contains just over 19 million citizens and has a GDP less than a tenth of Germany’s. Moldova, the smallest of the three, emerged from a former Soviet republic, with a population of 2.4 million and a GDP of $16.5 billion.
However, a closer examination reveals some commonalities: all three nations are either part of the EU and NATO or linked to these organizations as strategically significant assets. Additionally, they all grapple with significant challenges in conducting fair and clean elections.
In Germany's recent federal election, the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) narrowly missed the 5% threshold necessary for parliamentary representation, receiving just 4.972% of the national vote. This equated to nearly 2.469 million votes, with only a slight increase of roughly 13,000 to 14,000 votes needed to surpass that critical barrier.
While tight election results can be legitimate, the situation in Germany raises concerns of serious flaws and errors impacting the elections. Compounding this issue is the alarming pattern of mistakes that have disproportionately affected the BSW.
Only a week after the February 23 election, two significant problems with the election process have emerged. First, approximately 230,000 German voters living abroad faced hurdles casting their votes due to late arrival of necessary documents, in some cases even after the elections had concluded. The inability of these voters to participate raises substantial questions about the legitimacy of the results, especially given that a few more votes could have fundamentally altered the outcome by securing seats for the BSW in parliament.
The second troubling issue involves evidence suggesting that actual votes for the BSW were misallocated to another party. For instance, in Aachen, the BSW’s 7.24% support was mistakenly recorded as 0%, with the votes being attributed to the “Bündnis für Deutschland.” The scandal only came to light due to protests from local BSW supporters.
Despite claims from mainstream German media that the Aachen incident is an isolated case, reports of similar “errors” have surfaced from across the country. The process of uncovering these discrepancies is just beginning, leading to growing reasons to believe that the difference between correct and incorrect election procedures may have significant implications for the BSW, potentially depriving them and their voters of fair representation.
What could motivate such foul play? The BSW, with its blend of leftist social policies and right-leaning cultural stances, has faced criticism for being too pro-Russia due to its calls for peace in Ukraine and its objections to the deployment of new US missiles in Germany. In the current climate, such views have been targeted through smear campaigns and repression, raising the possibility that deliberate local “mistakes” have been added to this strategy. Asserting the BSW's legal rights may also prove challenging, as any revision of the electoral results would disrupt the delicate balance of government coalitions.
The voter disenfranchisement experienced in Germany echoes similar events in Moldova. There, Maia Sandu’s recent presidential election victory was marred by the manipulation of the vote among Moldovans abroad, particularly those likely to oppose her candidacy. Those living in regions such as Russia faced barriers casting their votes, while supporters in the West encountered none, shaping the election's outcome.
This manipulation was critical: without it, Sandu would likely have lost to her left-wing rival, Alexandr Stoianoglo. As a pro-EU candidate, Sandu’s victory was framed as a triumph for democracy and a stand against “Russian meddling,” illustrating the dissonance between the narrative presented and the reality of electoral misconduct.
Likewise, Romania's situation reflects brutal electoral foul play. Calin Georgescu, an upstart politician with a strong chance of winning upcoming presidential elections, has been branded as a far-right populist and accused of colluding with Russia.
The extent of the backlash against Georgescu has been striking. As he approached a possible electoral victory, the Romanian Constitutional Court invalidated the election under dubious pretenses, involving flimsy evidence crafted by national security services. This blatant attack on democratic rights has intensified public support for Georgescu, with polls indicating increased backing in light of his struggles.
With elections set for May and Georgescu leading the polls, authorities have escalated their repressive tactics against him, including a dramatic detention, accusations of multiple serious crimes, and curtailing his social media access. His campaign team faces harassment in the form of searches and legal actions that may prevent him from participating further in the electoral process.
Demonstrations from Georgescu's supporters have emerged, and he has appealed for assistance from the Trump administration against what he describes as Romania's “deep state.” High-profile figures like Elon Musk and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance have publicly expressed support for him in various capacities.
Georgescu’s struggles are likely compounded by Romania’s strategic importance to NATO, contributing to the intense opposition he faces from both national elites and EU actors. With geopolitical dynamics shifting, Georgescu's prospects may hinge on these larger developments, which could ultimately favor him.
While Maia Sandu's controversial victory in Moldova remains unchallenged, the BSW faces uncertain chances of achieving redress. Conversely, Georgescu benefits from significant support, which might increase as opposition tactics escalate, bolstered by implicit backing from the U.S.
Ultimately, one thing remains clear: the “garden” West, despite its frequent proclamations about “values” and “rules,” does not genuinely uphold the principles of democratic elections. Instead, geopolitical interests dominate, leading to a troubling reality where the fight against Russia and a reluctance to engage in diplomacy overshadow any commitment to democracy, paving the way for potential decline.
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
What do Germany, Moldova, and Romania share? At first glance, they appear quite different.
Germany stands as a traditional, large, and still relatively prosperous member of the Cold War "West," boasting a population exceeding 83 million and a GDP of around $4.53 trillion. In stark contrast, Romania, an ex-Soviet satellite, contains just over 19 million citizens and has a GDP less than a tenth of Germany’s. Moldova, the smallest of the three, emerged from a former Soviet republic, with a population of 2.4 million and a GDP of $16.5 billion.
However, a closer examination reveals some commonalities: all three nations are either part of the EU and NATO or linked to these organizations as strategically significant assets. Additionally, they all grapple with significant challenges in conducting fair and clean elections.
In Germany's recent federal election, the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) narrowly missed the 5% threshold necessary for parliamentary representation, receiving just 4.972% of the national vote. This equated to nearly 2.469 million votes, with only a slight increase of roughly 13,000 to 14,000 votes needed to surpass that critical barrier.
While tight election results can be legitimate, the situation in Germany raises concerns of serious flaws and errors impacting the elections. Compounding this issue is the alarming pattern of mistakes that have disproportionately affected the BSW.
Only a week after the February 23 election, two significant problems with the election process have emerged. First, approximately 230,000 German voters living abroad faced hurdles casting their votes due to late arrival of necessary documents, in some cases even after the elections had concluded. The inability of these voters to participate raises substantial questions about the legitimacy of the results, especially given that a few more votes could have fundamentally altered the outcome by securing seats for the BSW in parliament.
The second troubling issue involves evidence suggesting that actual votes for the BSW were misallocated to another party. For instance, in Aachen, the BSW’s 7.24% support was mistakenly recorded as 0%, with the votes being attributed to the “Bündnis für Deutschland.” The scandal only came to light due to protests from local BSW supporters.
Despite claims from mainstream German media that the Aachen incident is an isolated case, reports of similar “errors” have surfaced from across the country. The process of uncovering these discrepancies is just beginning, leading to growing reasons to believe that the difference between correct and incorrect election procedures may have significant implications for the BSW, potentially depriving them and their voters of fair representation.
What could motivate such foul play? The BSW, with its blend of leftist social policies and right-leaning cultural stances, has faced criticism for being too pro-Russia due to its calls for peace in Ukraine and its objections to the deployment of new US missiles in Germany. In the current climate, such views have been targeted through smear campaigns and repression, raising the possibility that deliberate local “mistakes” have been added to this strategy. Asserting the BSW's legal rights may also prove challenging, as any revision of the electoral results would disrupt the delicate balance of government coalitions.
The voter disenfranchisement experienced in Germany echoes similar events in Moldova. There, Maia Sandu’s recent presidential election victory was marred by the manipulation of the vote among Moldovans abroad, particularly those likely to oppose her candidacy. Those living in regions such as Russia faced barriers casting their votes, while supporters in the West encountered none, shaping the election's outcome.
This manipulation was critical: without it, Sandu would likely have lost to her left-wing rival, Alexandr Stoianoglo. As a pro-EU candidate, Sandu’s victory was framed as a triumph for democracy and a stand against “Russian meddling,” illustrating the dissonance between the narrative presented and the reality of electoral misconduct.
Likewise, Romania's situation reflects brutal electoral foul play. Calin Georgescu, an upstart politician with a strong chance of winning upcoming presidential elections, has been branded as a far-right populist and accused of colluding with Russia.
The extent of the backlash against Georgescu has been striking. As he approached a possible electoral victory, the Romanian Constitutional Court invalidated the election under dubious pretenses, involving flimsy evidence crafted by national security services. This blatant attack on democratic rights has intensified public support for Georgescu, with polls indicating increased backing in light of his struggles.
With elections set for May and Georgescu leading the polls, authorities have escalated their repressive tactics against him, including a dramatic detention, accusations of multiple serious crimes, and curtailing his social media access. His campaign team faces harassment in the form of searches and legal actions that may prevent him from participating further in the electoral process.
Demonstrations from Georgescu's supporters have emerged, and he has appealed for assistance from the Trump administration against what he describes as Romania's “deep state.” High-profile figures like Elon Musk and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance have publicly expressed support for him in various capacities.
Georgescu’s struggles are likely compounded by Romania’s strategic importance to NATO, contributing to the intense opposition he faces from both national elites and EU actors. With geopolitical dynamics shifting, Georgescu's prospects may hinge on these larger developments, which could ultimately favor him.
While Maia Sandu's controversial victory in Moldova remains unchallenged, the BSW faces uncertain chances of achieving redress. Conversely, Georgescu benefits from significant support, which might increase as opposition tactics escalate, bolstered by implicit backing from the U.S.
Ultimately, one thing remains clear: the “garden” West, despite its frequent proclamations about “values” and “rules,” does not genuinely uphold the principles of democratic elections. Instead, geopolitical interests dominate, leading to a troubling reality where the fight against Russia and a reluctance to engage in diplomacy overshadow any commitment to democracy, paving the way for potential decline.
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
