On Sunday, in the first circular of the Romanian presidential election, nearly 41% of the votes were won by George Simion – the leader of the nationalist, right-wing populist organization Alliance for Romanian Unity (AUR). In erstwhile elections cancelled by the Romanian Constitutional Court last November, Simion won only 13.86% of the vote. The nearly three-fold increase in political support is due to the fact that the majority of commentators agree, the annulment of erstwhile elections and the exclusion from the repeat of the candidate who placed first in them – radical right-wing Călina Georgescu.
In the absence of Georgesc Simion, he became a voice of opposition to the ruling Romanian duopol policy, the full political strategy and its serving elites. In November, the sum of support for Georgesc and Simion was 36.8 percent. Simion not only took over Georgescu's electorate, but besides extended the populist vote of the protest.
Mainstream Against Democracy
The sympathisers of the populist right-wing around the world, including in Poland, do not hold delight. “This is how it ends, as elites effort to impose on people to vote on!” – a message from Trump America to radicals from the east flank of the EU is carried.
According to the populist right-wing election in Romania and the Georgesc case are part of the wider war that liberal elites are waged around the planet present with democracy understood as majority rule. Its element, according to this narrative, is besides Trump's legal troubles from 2021-2024, Marine Le Pen blocking sentence the anticipation of taking part in the forthcoming presidential elections in France, a decision by the national Constitution Protection Office (BfV) officially recognising an alternate to Germany as a right-wing extremist organization whose activity is contrary to the constitutional order of the national Republic or the suspension of the payment of the organization Party's PiS subsidy.
"The political mainstream has led a incorrect policy for years, especially on issues specified as migration, erstwhile people want change today, mainstream elites block it by reaching for administrative means and institutionalised law" – the opinion leaders argue more or little sympathetic with the right-wing populist revolution.
The virtually akin communicative is nothing but a non-deserving conspiracy theory. Each of these cases – Trump, Le Pen, Georgescu, PiS – has its own history, its own local political and legal dynamics, and all of them cannot be brought to any mythical "mainstream" fight with a "real democratic" revolution against it.
At the same time, this communicative touches the real problem. More and more democracy is faced with a dilemma: how to defend itself against the vital social support of the forces that usage the freedoms that liberal democracy gives them, to destruct its foundations to transform the strategy into an authoritarian-oligarchy direction, while rejecting the fundamental to the democratic order of values. Unfortunately, there are frequently no good solutions to this problem.
Electoral support cannot be a licence for impunity
We observe it ourselves in the midst of the confusion around the PiS grant. The Polish situation is, of course, complicated by the fact of the dispute over the position of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the ultimate Court. This Chamber has issued a provision ordering the payment of the appropriations de facto, the problem being that there can be serious doubts as to whether this home meets the criteria of the independent court and whether the authority is obliged to recognise its provision.
Even if there were no akin doubts, the fact that the largest opposition organization loses the grant will always rise doubts. Always, besides in little polarised political systems than in Poland, there will be doubts whether this is an effort to take distant the anticipation of average action, for which money is needed.
On the another hand, in the years 2019-2023, the Law and Justice clearly abused “power benefits” to aid themselves in subsequent electoral campaigns. In 2020 and 2023, this exceeded all limits of decency. The State Electoral Commission has rather well documented a number of circumstantial cases erstwhile public measures supported the PiS campaign, breaching the rules of the electoral fight that we all agreed to. If the state could not draw consequences from this for the Kaczyński party, it would be profoundly demoralizing for the full political class. advanced electoral support must not mean a licence to impunity, the right to bend the rules of democratic competition in its favour.
This besides applies to Marine Le Pen. There is no uncertainty that Le Pen and her organization have created and maintained for years the strategy of moving funds from the European Parliament to finance organization activities in national policy alternatively than European policy – which is against the law. The court sentenced the leader of the French far right to the punishment of inebriability simply applied the law – the introduction of which was besides supported by the Le Pen environment.
The main controversy is that the court has decided to take a peculiar — although full within the legal order — measure, ruling that the conviction becomes enforceable after the judgement at first instance, although usually a second would be essential to finalise it. Defenders of this decision argue that it was due to Le Pen’s attitude during the trial: refusing to admit guilt and repent. Regardless of the motives of the court, specified a harsh measurement applied to the candidate, who would be 1 of the main favorites in the 2027 presidential election, will rise concerns as to whether the courts here are trying to execute voters – who, having a verdict from the first instance, could block Le Pen from the presidency with an election card.
Can democracy criminalize undemocratic forces?
The Romanian case is even more complicated. Which is how different it was what happened there in November. The first circular was won by a candidate treated by all as a gap combining utmost nationalism, esotericism, anti-scientific departures, and anti-Western sentiments. However, he had a perfectly prepared – especially for Tik Toku – and a well-funded campaign, although he officially declared that it had zero costs.
No self-respecting democracy can tolerate a situation where a candidate – even little eccentric than Georgesc – illegally throws undeclared money of unknown origin into an election race, thus ensuring a triumph for himself. However, the Constitutional Court's decision raises many doubts. On the another hand, votes were thrown in the basket for another candidates and candidates, including Elena Lasconi, who honestly entered the second round. Lasconi is simply a centre-right politician, her organization in the European Parliament is part of a liberal global movement, but she has, from the point of view of the Romanian elite, the disadvantage that she does not belong to the dominant, at least until recently, in the Romanian duopol policy. It is hard to wonder if Lasconi belonged to 1 of the wings of the "Romanian PO-PiSu" the Constitutional Court would not have ruled otherwise on the validity of the first circular – for example, invalidating Georgescu's result.
Georgesc's exclusion from the re-election is even more questionable. This was justified by the fact that individual who violated the rules of the democratic race thus showed that he did not warrant that as president he would stand watch over the Romanian Constitution. Which is legally the work of the Romanian head of state. The fear of the President, who, alternatively of upholding democratic order, is taking part in its dismantling, is not trivial, as we know well in Poland, since Andrzej Duda swore at night to the judges-dublers of the Constitutional Court. However, the decision to exclude a candidate who does not meet democratic standards from the race will always make controversy and hazard to any political system.
This subject will besides be discussed vividly in Germany in connection with the BfV decision. It allows services to track and eavesdrop the organization and exclude its members from working in institutions specified as police. For any time now there has been a discussion in Germany about whether the AfD should not be banned – what a constitutional court can do at the request of the government or the Bundestag.
BfV is simply a profoundly controversial institution. He was criticized not only by the right, but besides by the left. It is the legacy of the dramatic past of Germany of the 20th century, 1 of the fuses built into the strategy to defend human rights from the excesses of democratic politics. The existence of an institution capable of likewise stigmatizing even the little supportive than AfD formations must rise concern about the temptation of abuse of power and persecution of movements for various reasons uncomfortable for the elite. The delegation of the leading organization in the polls present would be an atomic option, seriously interfering in the choice of Germans. However, on the another hand, already after the BfV decision poll for “Bild am Sonntag” shows that as many as 48 percent of Germans support the illegalisation of AfD.
There's nothing democratic about putting up a cordon
However, this option is not expected today, and there is not a majority determined to do so at the Bundestag. Berlin's maneuverability is besides limited by the global context. The alternate found an ally in Trump's administration, who, even before BfV's decision, screwed the German elite for his attitude towards this party.
Trump's environment besides resents the German elite not only for legal and administrative action against AfD, but besides for a policy that isolates this organization behind the sanitary cordon – as with another states that act likewise towards utmost right forces in their backyard. However, while there may be doubts as to the function played by the BfV in the German strategy and the anticipation of illegalisation of the party, this does not mean that AfD can be considered as a average part of the democratic system.
Even against the background of the European utmost right, alternate is an utmost party, accepting – which was the main argument of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution – the cultural definition of a nation, excluding from the civilian community and repeatedly affecting the dignity of German citizens of immigrant origin in their organization messages. This puts the AfD in a clear contrast, for example, with the Le Pen National Unity, which, although it besides gathers cultural chauvinists, is, however, on the ground of the enlightened, civic definition of the political nation.
There is truly nothing undemocratic about the fact that parties inactive having a majority in German politics do not want to cooperate with specified a organization and isolate it behind the sanitary cordon. No 1 is obliged to co-operate with an environment whose values are powerfully rejected, to say: here is my limit, here we put the cordon, is not an abuse of democracy but a average democratic policy in action.
Of course, the question arises how akin cordons – in Germany, France, in another democracies – will be able to survive. In many countries – from the Trump States to Poland, the Law and Justice Department – broke under the force of social discontent. Policies to isolate utmost forces, more or little hostile liberal democracies frequently only strengthen them. Like trying to bring extremist politicians to account for the violations they committed.
Trump's judicial troubles helped alternatively than harmed him politically. The U.S. strategy has failed all the way here: on the 1 hand, it was not effectively able to bring Trump to account for what he did after the losing 2020 election – which is hard to qualify another than trying to stay in power against defeat – on the another hand, causing him further cases, displeased the MAGA base and increased Trump's determination to radically overrupt justice upon his return to power. 1 can seriously fear whether the PiS settlement will end likewise in Poland.
Populistic, anti-liberal forces frequently represent real social emotions and interests, raising problems that mainstream parties have not been able to solve for years. And if they don't start solving them, then the tightest cordons and the strictest application of the law won't help: the ramparts protecting liberal democracies will yet break completely.
