In last month’s presidential election in Romania, an unexpected twist took place with the far-right candidate, Calin Georgescu, who was practically unheard of, winning the highest amount of votes in the first round. Romania, a valuable member of NATO for two decades and the European Union for about the same period, was taken by surprise with the far-right momentum. The sudden surge of anti-EU, pro-Russia views, coupled with opposition against support for Ukraine has been a trend in various parts of Europe, but Romania was unprepared for the shocking results. Georgescu’s unforeseen victory left many perplexed.
Georgescu was not only an outsider in the election dynamics but also lacked any significant party endorsement or even a pronounced public persona until a few weeks before the poll. From being an obscure name, Georgescu leapt to becoming the leading candidate almost in a blink. Interestingly, he boasted about his microscopic campaign budget. Such a phenomenon left many wondering about the dynamics at play. The mystery quickly unraveled, with Russia being the invisible puppeteer pulling the strings.
Under Romania’s political setup, if no presidential aspirant obtains an outright majority in the inaugural round, the best two candidates proceed to a runoff. With thirteen contenders in this competition, Georgescu held a modest 1% in the polls at the outset of November. But in a radical twist, he became an overnight sensation on TikTok in the last fortnight of the campaign trail. His following sky-rocketed with hundreds of thousands of followers and millions of likes. This unexpected shift ensured he bagged 24% of the votes and emerged as the leading candidate.
According to Romania’s security organs, a well-orchestrated Russian influence enterprise was surreptitiously at play. They inflated Georgescu’s online popularity by manipulating the TikTok algorithms using innumerable bogus accounts and vast paid promotions. Initially, it appeared that the Constitutional Court would validate the preliminary electoral results. But, Romania’s incumbent president, Klaus Iohannis, disclosed declassified intelligence data to publicly air the extent of Russia’s undue interference.
Finally, on December 6, the Court made a definitive decision to invalidate the election outcome, citing its corruption due to unfair usage of technology, undisclosed funding sources, and preferential treatment on social media platforms that eventually led to the ‘distortion of voters’ expressed will,’ as reported by The Associated Press. Russia has earned notoriety for its disruptive presence in the electoral processes of several democratic nations, exploiting the trust in institutional mechanisms, spreading misleading information, and boosting far-right candidates and causes.
What is most alarming is that the democratic societies have yet to develop an effective system to block or prevent Russia’s intrusion. This allows Vladimir Putin’s regime to infiltrate with negligible cost repeatedly, making it a handy foreign policy instrument. Americans might remember the infamous case of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S presidential elections, but such attempts are not limited to the States alone.
The meddling by the Russians was evident in the 2016 Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, the 2017 German elections, and it severely undermined the European Parliament elections across France, Germany, and Poland in recent years. The U.S. elections this year were far from immune with rampant spread of deceptive videos and interviews alleging non-existent election fraud. Russia’s interference extends beyond these countries – it actively undermines democratic developments in Africa, focusing on promoting authoritarian figures across some two dozen countries.
It’s essential to keep in mind that measuring the actual impact of such interference is a complex task. The Kremlin generally fuels pre-existing conspiracy theories, mistrust, and political factionalism. Investigators in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations have not been able to conclusively establish that Russian interference changed election outcomes on a significant level. However, considering the spread of false posts instilling fear of corruption, there is an influence, albeit marginal.
Due to this complexity, it becomes rather tough to determine an apt response to Russsia’s actions. Their acts tend to break multiple laws, including election, campaign finance, and social media regulations. Attempts at finding suitable sanctions have been hindered due to Russia’s already sanctioned status. The question remains, how should the affected nations act? Will exposing these fraudulent activities deter people from falling into these traps or modify their voting behavior?
A proposition voiced by some is disqualifying a candidate who was unethically advocated by external powers. But such a measure seems problematic, considering that the candidate could well be unaware of the external disturbance in their favor. For instance, no concrete evidence to suggest Georgescu’s involvement in the Russian interference is available. Could a rerun of Romania’s election shield the result from undue foreign influence next time? What if the repeated vote yields the same outcome?
In Romania’s case, the Russian campaign tapped into real grievances. Many Romanians seemed to have grown wary of the two main political parties and were exploring other options. Rejecting election results when no compromise of the physical voting process occurred is a contentious prospect in its own right. It remains to be seen whether a rerun will address the problem of Russia’s undue influence in Romania. This episode is a pressing reminder for all democratic nations that measures need to be taken to both prevent and tackle disinformation campaigns.
The role of social media platforms and their regulation is a significant aspect of this prevention and tackling strategy. Online platforms have proven to be a fertile breeding ground for spreading misinformation and creating a skewed public opinion. Thus, maintaining a thorough check and imposing stricter regulations on these platforms are necessary to safeguard the sovereignty and decision-making authenticity of nations. The response taken by Romania indicates that failure to manage these issues appropriately can lead to severe repercussions.