The house always wins: EU's mock 'democracy' displayed in case against Romania's Georgescu
Romania's leading candidate for president has been disqualified from the elections in a contentious decision. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
The leading candidate for the presidency has been barred from participating in the elections under a ridiculous pretext. Will this be the fate of the entire bloc?
A clear sign of a decaying Ancien Regime is found in the increasingly crude and blatant methods of repression it employs.
By this measure, Romania and, by extension, the EU appear to be on the brink of a revolution. It is difficult to envision a more blatant series of underhanded tactics than those employed to stifle Calin Georgescu, who is poised to win the upcoming presidential election.
The relentless pursuit of Georgescu by the Romanian establishment has become quite the saga. To summarize: Last December, Georgescu, an unexpected candidate who identifies as a nationalist-sovereignist, emerged as the winner in the first round of Romania’s presidential elections. Instead of progressing to the legally mandated second round, the Romanian establishment resorted to blatant lawfare: Bucharest’s constitutional court annulled the run-off, where Georgescu had a strong chance of success—precisely because he was likely to win.
The court's justification was absurd—”Russian interference,” once more—and now even mainstream Western media have had to concede the so-called “evidence,” a compilation created by the Romanian security services, is nothing but a poor joke. Even the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a respected voice of German Russophobia, has acknowledged that the assertion of Russian meddling is a “myth”: “The governing class in Bucharest has made a show of the Russian bogeyman to distract from the failure of its little power games – and to have a pretext for annulling elections that did not suit it.”
To make matters worse, the social media campaign that was employed against Georgescu as evidence was actually funded by his political adversaries. Their intention was to elevate him to the second round so they could defeat him there. When he unexpectedly garnered popular support and thwarted their plans, they opted to cancel the election.
Unsurprisingly, many Romanians recognized this charade and rallied even more around the sidelined candidate. Consequently, Georgescu became even more likely to win the replacement elections scheduled for May, as polls indicated he was leading with over 41% compared to less than 19% for his closest opponent.
Such numbers were evidently intolerable for Romania’s long-suffering and deeply corrupt establishment. With those poll results public, the main election authority has chosen to ban Georgescu once again. The principle behind this is clear: When you appear poised to win legitimately, remember the first rule of the EU’s democracy club: we always emerge victorious. You’re out.
Georgescu can appeal, but guess where he must go: back to the same constitutional court that previously sought to undermine his candidacy when he was gaining momentum. It is unlikely he will receive a fair hearing.
Let’s clarify one thing: Georgescu has often been labeled as far-right. He is undoubtedly a nationalist and does not align with my views on the Left. However, none of this is relevant. He has a right to run for office. If his opponents disagree with his policies, they must defeat him at the ballot box, not through legal manipulation and unfounded accusations.
These accusations include dubious affiliations, a cavalier approach to recent Romanian history, and questionable financial transparency. Yet, so what? Even if every claim turned out to be valid, if the same standards were uniformly applied across Romania, the EU, or the favored “democracy” of Zelensky’s Ukraine, many of the current “elites” would fall short.
Italy, for instance, is governed by a neo-fascist administration; Ukraine is rife with not just neo-fascism but the original variant from World War II. Furthermore, no one would dare to simply exclude parties like the AfD in Germany or the National Rally in France from elections, despite the undemocratic barriers they encounter. There are numerous other examples that underscore the point: even if Georgescu is deemed “far right,” the EU has long tolerated such ideologies.
The real reasons for Georgescu's temporary elimination are more profound: firstly, he represents a populist challenge to the elite both domestically and within the EU. Secondly, he has the audacity to question the logic of transforming Romania into a massive NATO base and, in doing so, a prime target. Everything else is merely a pretext. Don’t be misled by it.
Georgescu's supporters are protesting and resisting, and rightfully so. Officials in the US have also consistently backed him. J. D. Vance cautioned Europeans against overreaching in Romania, while Elon Musk criticized the recent Romanian assault on elections as “crazy.” Musk is correct in this instance, much to the dismay of those in power.
In a way, the Romanian authorities, clearly with EU backing, have gone too far, which signals a troubling trend. With the US-European relationship already under strain, it appears the Europeans are willing to defy their traditional overseers in Washington, at least when it comes to suspending elections, stifling democracy, or perpetuating the reckless and violent Western proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. Bravo, Europe: You are finally realizing your ability to rebel against the US, only to find yourself in an even worse predicament.
Georgescu is right in stating that this matter extends beyond Romania; it represents a trend-setting event for all of EU-Europe. Following the extensive manipulations that took place in France to forge odd governments that effectively sidelined both the populist right and left, and the overt “firewalling” evidenced in Germany, we are now witnessing the outright suppression of elections.
Romania could well serve as a harbinger for the future of the EU. Ironically, the only hope lies in Europe’s future diverging from that of the EU. Indeed, Europe may only find its future if the EU does not.
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
A clear sign of a decaying Ancien Regime is found in the increasingly crude and blatant methods of repression it employs.
By this measure, Romania and, by extension, the EU appear to be on the brink of a revolution. It is difficult to envision a more blatant series of underhanded tactics than those employed to stifle Calin Georgescu, who is poised to win the upcoming presidential election.
The relentless pursuit of Georgescu by the Romanian establishment has become quite the saga. To summarize: Last December, Georgescu, an unexpected candidate who identifies as a nationalist-sovereignist, emerged as the winner in the first round of Romania’s presidential elections. Instead of progressing to the legally mandated second round, the Romanian establishment resorted to blatant lawfare: Bucharest’s constitutional court annulled the run-off, where Georgescu had a strong chance of success—precisely because he was likely to win.
The court's justification was absurd—”Russian interference,” once more—and now even mainstream Western media have had to concede the so-called “evidence,” a compilation created by the Romanian security services, is nothing but a poor joke. Even the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a respected voice of German Russophobia, has acknowledged that the assertion of Russian meddling is a “myth”: “The governing class in Bucharest has made a show of the Russian bogeyman to distract from the failure of its little power games – and to have a pretext for annulling elections that did not suit it.”
To make matters worse, the social media campaign that was employed against Georgescu as evidence was actually funded by his political adversaries. Their intention was to elevate him to the second round so they could defeat him there. When he unexpectedly garnered popular support and thwarted their plans, they opted to cancel the election.
Unsurprisingly, many Romanians recognized this charade and rallied even more around the sidelined candidate. Consequently, Georgescu became even more likely to win the replacement elections scheduled for May, as polls indicated he was leading with over 41% compared to less than 19% for his closest opponent.
Such numbers were evidently intolerable for Romania’s long-suffering and deeply corrupt establishment. With those poll results public, the main election authority has chosen to ban Georgescu once again. The principle behind this is clear: When you appear poised to win legitimately, remember the first rule of the EU’s democracy club: we always emerge victorious. You’re out.
Georgescu can appeal, but guess where he must go: back to the same constitutional court that previously sought to undermine his candidacy when he was gaining momentum. It is unlikely he will receive a fair hearing.
Let’s clarify one thing: Georgescu has often been labeled as far-right. He is undoubtedly a nationalist and does not align with my views on the Left. However, none of this is relevant. He has a right to run for office. If his opponents disagree with his policies, they must defeat him at the ballot box, not through legal manipulation and unfounded accusations.
These accusations include dubious affiliations, a cavalier approach to recent Romanian history, and questionable financial transparency. Yet, so what? Even if every claim turned out to be valid, if the same standards were uniformly applied across Romania, the EU, or the favored “democracy” of Zelensky’s Ukraine, many of the current “elites” would fall short.
Italy, for instance, is governed by a neo-fascist administration; Ukraine is rife with not just neo-fascism but the original variant from World War II. Furthermore, no one would dare to simply exclude parties like the AfD in Germany or the National Rally in France from elections, despite the undemocratic barriers they encounter. There are numerous other examples that underscore the point: even if Georgescu is deemed “far right,” the EU has long tolerated such ideologies.
The real reasons for Georgescu's temporary elimination are more profound: firstly, he represents a populist challenge to the elite both domestically and within the EU. Secondly, he has the audacity to question the logic of transforming Romania into a massive NATO base and, in doing so, a prime target. Everything else is merely a pretext. Don’t be misled by it.
Georgescu's supporters are protesting and resisting, and rightfully so. Officials in the US have also consistently backed him. J. D. Vance cautioned Europeans against overreaching in Romania, while Elon Musk criticized the recent Romanian assault on elections as “crazy.” Musk is correct in this instance, much to the dismay of those in power.
In a way, the Romanian authorities, clearly with EU backing, have gone too far, which signals a troubling trend. With the US-European relationship already under strain, it appears the Europeans are willing to defy their traditional overseers in Washington, at least when it comes to suspending elections, stifling democracy, or perpetuating the reckless and violent Western proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. Bravo, Europe: You are finally realizing your ability to rebel against the US, only to find yourself in an even worse predicament.
Georgescu is right in stating that this matter extends beyond Romania; it represents a trend-setting event for all of EU-Europe. Following the extensive manipulations that took place in France to forge odd governments that effectively sidelined both the populist right and left, and the overt “firewalling” evidenced in Germany, we are now witnessing the outright suppression of elections.
Romania could well serve as a harbinger for the future of the EU. Ironically, the only hope lies in Europe’s future diverging from that of the EU. Indeed, Europe may only find its future if the EU does not.
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
