A boy holds a sign reading "Calin Georgescu President" during an anti-government rally in Bucharest, Romania.
Georgescuhas appealed his exclusion.
The background: Last year, Georgescu – a once-fringe figure – won the first round of the presidential election after an 11th-hour flood of TikTok videos boosted his views: He opposes NATO’s help for Ukraine and admires Romania’s 20th-century fascist leaders. Authorities blamed a Russian influence campaign, without providing clear evidence, and canceled the results.
Why it matters: Foreign policy is one area where Romania’s mostly ceremonial presidency has real power. Romania, a NATO member, borders Ukraine and is a key piece of the alliance’s support for Kyiv.
Georgescu’s ban drew sharp reactions. Hundreds of his supporters clashed with police in Bucharest, and even Georgescu’s main opponent, pro-NATO candidate Elena Lasconi, who called the election annulment “an affront to the very essence of democracy,” has spoken out against the ban.
What’s next: Romania’s Constitutional Court will rule on the appeal by Wednesday.
The bigger question: Is it OK for a democracy to ban a leading candidate in the name of … democracy?