Antonescu and Funeriu, in Georgescu's dilemma: voting, the only solution?

The recent statements of Crin Antonescu and Daniel Funeriu about Călin Georgescu's candidacy in this year's presidential elections raise questions about political responsibility and the health of democracy in our country. The messages of the two politicians who would run for the position of president of the country highlight different perspectives on how Romanian society should manage the situation of a controversial candidate.

Crin Antonescu, in a statement made to Digi24, surprised public opinion by stating that, despite the perception that the surprise Călin Georgescu represents a "real danger" for Romania, it would be better if he were allowed to run. His argument is simple: removing Georgescu from the competition through administrative measures, which could be perceived as repressive or undemocratic, would harm society more than his presence in the elections.

Antonescu pointed out that Romanians should be the ones to sanction Georgescu's lies through voting, not through decisions imposed by institutions. "If Romanians don't see that Mr. Călin Georgescu is lying when he says that billions from the PNRR were taken and not a single leu entered Romania, then we will be with Călin Georgescu, and that should be our fate," said Crin Antonescu.

The statement by the former PNL president seems to suggest a cautious trust in the discernment of voters, but it raises the question: is this a way to test democracy or an avoidance of assuming a clear position?

• Daniel Funeriu: "You have to win the presidency by voting, not in court"

In a similar, but not identical, position, Daniel Funeriu, former Minister of National Education, who has expressed his intention to run in the presidential elections, argued that the judges of the Constitutional Court should allow Călin Georgescu to run, unless clear evidence appears that would invalidate his status as a candidate. Funeriu emphasized that Georgescu managed to win the first round of the 2024 elections due to the lack of strong opponents.

"I want to defeat him in the popular vote, not through decisions of the Constitutional Court," Daniel Funeriu declared yesterday on Digi 24, bringing up a major issue: the discrediting of the presidential office and the electoral process. In his opinion, in order to reduce tensions in society and restore trust in democracy, a clear and transparent plan for the conduct of elections is necessary, as well as strict compliance with constitutional provisions. Funeriu stressed that "the state must stop lying" and that people should trust their own judgment to elect leaders who represent their interests.

The statements of the two politicians leave room for interpretation and raise more questions than they provide answers. If both Crin Antonescu and Daniel Funeriu recognize a danger regarding Călin Georgescu's candidacy, why do they insist on the idea that he should be allowed to participate in the elections? Is this a manifestation of a deep commitment to democratic values or an avoidance of a real debate about the limits of democracy in the face of populism?

Their positions also fail to address the substantive issue: what happens if Georgescu wins the elections? Crin Antonescu seems to accept this possibility as a natural consequence of the popular vote, but does not offer a solution for the long-term impact on the country's stability. At the same time, Daniel Funeriu expresses his desire to defeat Georgescu at the polls, but it is not clear how he intends to counter the populist messages that brought him his previous success.

• The legal and social context of Georgescu's candidacy

The issue of Călin Georgescu's candidacy is complicated by the current legal and social context, following the Constitutional Court's decision to annul the first round of the 2024 presidential elections, a decision that created major tensions, amplified by Georgescu's appeal to the ECHR, following the rejection of the request addressed to the Bucharest Court of Appeal regarding the annulment of the decision of the Central Electoral Bureau that stopped the second round of the election.

In addition, the daily protests of Georgescu's supporters show that he enjoys significant support, despite the controversies surrounding him. That support amounts to almost 23% of citizens who went to the polls on November 24. According to the data contained in the minutes drawn up by the Central Electoral Bureau, out of the 9,242,186 valid votes cast, 2,120,401 votes (22.94%) were counted in favor of Călin Georgescu, which represents an acquired legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate.

Based on these votes, Georgescu and his lawyers feel entitled to act against the CCR decision, being ready to request that would a review of it. Former Minister of Justice, Tudorel Toader - former judge of the CCR - stated yesterday that the respective procedure is not included in the legislation of the Constitutional Court and, consequently, the request for review would be rejected, if it were to be submitted by Călin Georgescu.

In light of the above, Călin Georgescu's candidacy is not only a political issue, but also a major test for Romanian democracy, and the statements of Antonescu and Funeriu seem to ignore the deeper dimension of the crisis: how can Romanian society protect its democratic institutions in the face of a populist leader who exploits social discontent and lack of trust in the political class?