Forced candidacy, a drifting party: George Simion, the victim of its own incoherence

The Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR) party is going through one of the most tense periods in its existence, marked by an open conflict between the party's leader, George Simion, and co-founder Claudiu Târziu. This scandal is not just an internal dispute, but also raises questions about the party's political direction and decision-making mechanisms, especially in the context of the presidential elections.

AUR, a party that has consistently positioned itself as the main voice of sovereignism in Romania, was surprisingly inconsistent in the process of nominating a candidate for this year's presidential elections. Although it had a significant electoral base and could take advantage of the growing nationalist wave, AUR did not initially come up with its own candidate. Instead, George Simion chose to support the candidacy of Călin Georgescu, known for his pro-Russian rhetoric and anti-Western positions. This decision was already a questionable one within the party, but what followed further accentuated the internal fractures.

The rejection of Călin Georgescu's candidacy file by the Central Electoral Bureau, a decision also upheld by the Constitutional Court of Romania, left AUR in a difficult situation, without a clear candidate for the presidential election. Instead of assuming responsibility and making a firm decision within the party, George Simion resorted to a strategy that seemed more like an act of subordination than leadership. Instead of consulting his colleagues in the party leadership or organizing an internal debate to designate a new candidate, Simion went again to Georgescu, who had already been disqualified from the presidential race, to ask him to choose the future AUR candidate.

This move generated a wave of discontent and speculation within the party, with many members wondering why a leader who is not officially part of AUR should decide on such an important candidacy. Surprisingly, Georgescu not only assumed this role, but also imposed that both George Simion and Anamaria Gavrilă - the leader of POT - submit their candidacies.

For Claudiu Târziu - the president of the National Council of AUR, this situation was the last straw. In a public message, Târziu denounced Simion's autocratic style and his inability to manage critical situations in a transparent and democratic way. He criticized the fact that major decisions are not made through real consultation within the party, but imposed by an "inert coterie" surrounding George Simion. Moreover, Târziu highlighted the paradox of a party that claims to be sovereignist, but which, in reality, seems to be controlled by external influences - such as some PSD leaders - or by people outside the official structures.

George Simion's response to these accusations was intended to be firm, but ultimately lacked clarity. Instead of offering concrete explanations about the reasons that led him to cede the decision on the presidential candidacy to Georgescu, Simion preferred to reject any attempt to challenge his authority. He insisted that AUR must remain a united party, formed only by loyal people, suggesting that any internal dissent is seen as a threat to the integrity of the party. This approach failed to calm spirits in AUR, but on the contrary, fueled even more distrust in the way the party is led.

The lack of transparency in decision-making, external influences on the process of designating the presidential candidate, and the centralization of power around Simion are problems that could have serious consequences for the future of the party. If this internal crisis is not managed wisely, there is a risk that AUR will lose public support and fragment, becoming a much weaker political force than it intended to be.

The scandal between George Simion and Claudiu Târziu is not just an isolated episode, but a symptom of a deeper crisis within AUR. The way in which the candidacy for the presidential elections was managed shows a party that oscillates between leaders incapable of making clear decisions and external influences dictating the political direction.