The power of justice in democracy: the Călin Georgescu case and the accusations of "judiocracy"

Călin Georgescu, indicted for six crimes, the most important of which is instigation of actions aimed at changing the constitutional order - a case handled by the Prosecutor General's Office - has launched serious accusations against the Romanian judiciary, considering that he is facing a political trial, accusations for which the Superior Council of Magistracy has not expressed any public position, in the sense of showing that they affect the independence of the judiciary. One of these accusations was made by Călin Georgescu, on February 26, upon leaving the Prosecutor General's Office, after he was detained in traffic and taken to interrogations, following which he was indicted by prosecutors. After leaving the interrogations, Călin Georgescu declared: "Nothing surprises me. I expected to be arrested (...). On December 6, we were done a great "favor". Corruption has been directly exposed, and this desperate initiative can only be welcomed. This situation has shown us that the system still works, as much as it can. These actions remind me of the communist mentality and system of the 1950s. We are the people, we are the power. We will not kneel before anyone."

Earlier, on the morning of the day he was detained, while prosecutors were conducting searches in his file in several locations across the country, Călin Georgescu posted on Facebook: "The current system continues its abusive actions! This morning, at 6 am, the authorities descended again on dozens of locations, disrupting families and waking children from their sleep. They are trying to fabricate evidence to justify the election result and to prevent my new candidacy for the presidency. They have been searching for three months without success. On behalf of my voters and all those who want a democratic and free Romania, I oppose this oppressive system that is trying to subjugate us. We do not live in a truly free society, and the legality of these actions is questionable. I will not give in! I count on your support and I am waiting for you on Saturday, in Victory Square!"

On Monday, March 3, after leaving the Bucharest District Court 1 where he challenged the judicial control measure ordered by the prosecutors of the General Prosecutor's Office, Călin Georgescu stated: "I am innocent and, after so many decades in which the system believed itself invincible, at the moment when the people prove that they have the power and have been reborn from the ashes and have awakened to consciousness, of course things are in the same formula that we see very eloquently with President Trump, in the United States, with everything he has suffered for two years. But it is a natural thing and things are clear".

These words directly refer to a controversial topic: to what extent can the judiciary intervene in political decisions or influence the democratic direction of a state? Georgescu compared his situation to that of former US President Donald Trump, suggesting that justice sometimes becomes an instrument for eliminating figures inconvenient to the system.

We do not know if it is as Călin Georgescu claims, especially since there have been cases in court, over time, that have been said to have been politically manipulated or that the decisions were in favor of people with political influence, but his statements on the activity of the prosecutors conducting the criminal investigation in his file seem intended to put pressure on the magistrates, both from the candidate in last year's presidential elections and from his supporters who, every time Georgescu appears at the Prosecutor's Office or the Court, protest in front of the respective institutions.

• Magistrates accused of "judiocracy" in the US, El Salvador and Brazil

The perception of magistrates intervening in the political game is not unique or typical of some of those at the forefront of the Romanian political scene at this time. There is a global debate about a so-called "judiocracy", in which judges, far from being simple interpreters of the law, become political actors who directly influence the course of a state, often contrary to the popular will. In a recent article published by the daily France Soir, several examples of judicial discretion are presented, inserting the perception that some judges behave as if they were kings, above any political decision-maker who reached the respective position following democratic elections.

The first example provided by the cited source is Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador who faced strong opposition from the Supreme Court, which blocked his reforms. In response, he initiated a constitutional reform that led to the dismissal of judges and changes to the rules of the judicial system. Bukele justified this action by saying: "The people have spoken, and we are cleaning up," emphasizing that his approach respected the constitutional mechanisms through the democratically elected legislature. Moreover, the president of El Salvador said that dismissing the judges in question was the only way to "give back power to the people" to a judicial elite he accused of protecting its own interests.

The second example provided is Donald Trump's first term, when the US president had numerous conflicts with federal courts, accusing them of blocking his policies on immigration and economic regulations. The conflicts continued since Donald Trump took office for his second term in the White House, when his personal adviser, Elon Musk, as coordinator of the Department for Government Efficiency, criticized federal judges who blocked his access to sensitive government systems or opposed federal staff reductions. These frictions led Elon Musk to react harshly on the X network. Thus, after Manhattan Federal Court Judge Paul Engelmayer decided on February 8, 2025, to temporarily block DOGE's access to the Treasury Department's payment systems (containing data such as social security numbers), Musk wrote on X: "A corrupt judge protects corruption. He must be removed now!" Furthermore, the DOGE head accused the judge of protecting bureaucratic interests at the expense of taxpayers who want transparency and stated that the magistrate's action represents a "judicial coup" against democracy. The attack on the magistrates was taken up by Donald Trump, who on February 11, 2025, during a press conference held at the White House with Elon Musk, harshly criticized Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, who only the day before decided that the Trump Administration should release billions of dollars in federal subsidies. Donald Trump said: "High-ranking judges (...) are slowing down our agenda. It's hard to believe that a judge can say: "We don't want you to do this.'"

Two days earlier, US Vice President JD Vance wrote on the X network: "If a judge were to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, we would be witnessing something illegal. Judges cannot check the legitimate power of the Executive Branch."

The third case presented by the cited source is that of Alexandre de Moraes, a judge of the Supreme Court of Brazil and former president of the Superior Electoral Tribunal, who was accused of censorship and abuse of power after he suspended the activity of the social network X (formerly Twitter) in the South American country, justifying the measure by "combating disinformation," effectively cutting off access to that network for 20 million users.

The latest example provided by the French publication is a controversial law on religious separatism, which, after being adopted by the parliament in Paris, was partially annulled by the Constitutional Council, although the measures included in the normative act were supported by the majority of the population.

• The existence of mechanisms to balance the judicial power, a necessity for the rule of law

These examples raise an essential question: how far can the judiciary go in limiting decisions made by democratically elected politicians?

In consolidated democracies, the balance between the powers of the state is a fundamental principle. However, in many states, including Romania, cases have recently appeared in which the judiciary seems to exceed its powers, influencing major political decisions and indirectly shaping the course of democracy. The most recent example in our country is the way in which the Constitutional Court annulled the presidential elections, on the first day of the second round, after a few days earlier it had validated the first round of voting and the results recorded. In such a situation, as well as in the case when some judges annul measures adopted by democratically elected governments, the question arises whether the decisions of the magistrates represent a defense of the rule of law or a misappropriation of popular sovereignty.

The perception that magistrates behave like "kings" of the institutional system also comes from their lack of accountability. While politicians are evaluated by vote, judges remain in office for decades, without clear mechanisms for democratic control over their decisions. The control mechanism is strictly jurisdictional, and regarding their liability, the actions are complicated and take time, going through several stages, one of which is the trial of the judge or prosecutor by the specialized section of the Superior Council of Magistracy, a procedure that is completely devoid of transparency.

It is possible that this lack of legal transparency regarding both the decisions taken in certain cases and the holding of certain magistrates accountable by the SCM is the reason why in 2023 only 48% of Romanian citizens had trust in justice, according to the Eurobarometer published in mid-2024, and in 2024 only 50% will trust the magistrates according to a survey conducted by IRES.

In this context, a set of reforms has come to the attention of political decision-makers that propose, among other things, the election of members of the Constitutional Courts by popular vote or by the vote of the magistrates in our country, the introduction of a system of public verification of decisions with major impact and the transparency of judicial deliberations regarding cases that concern major interests of society.

They argue that, although the independence of the judiciary is an essential pillar of democracy, it must not become an absolute power, above the popular will. Cases such as that of Călin Georgescu raise a valid question: is there a moment when the judiciary, instead of defending democracy, begins to shape it according to its own interests or external pressures?

The solution is neither the subordination of the judiciary to politics, nor the acceptance of a discretionary judicial power. The balance between the two must be a constant concern for any society that wishes to preserve its authentic democratic character.