Romania on Sunday elected a new president in one of the most consequential and polarising votes of its post-communist era. Nicușor Dan, an independent, pro-EU technocrat currently serving as mayor of Bucharest, won a decisive victory over far-right rival George Simion in a second round of voting — delivering a rebuke to the country’s right-wing nationalists, who had been expected to win.
While the presidency is a partly ceremonial post, as commander-in-chief of Romania’s armed forces the president plays a crucial role in shaping the country’s foreign policy. As a neighbour to Ukraine, Romania is a vital strategic player in the region’s security and an important NATO outpost. The country’s Mihail Kogalniceanu air base is on track to become one of the alliance’s largest by 2030.
Dan won an estimated 54.2% of the vote. Simion, the leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), garnered 46.1% after having dominated a first round of voting two weeks prior, shocking the political centre.
The backdrop to Sunday’s vote was unusually turbulent. In November, the country’s political landscape was upended when ultranationalist Calin Georgescu unexpectedly topped a first round of voting for the presidency. Georgescu’s pro-Russian rhetoric and antipathy to NATO and the EU alarmed European leaders. Allegations of election irregularities and Russian interference quickly followed, prompting Romania’s Constitutional Court to annul the results in December.
A subsequent decision to bar Georgescu from standing again sparked protests in Bucharest and drew condemnation from far-right and populist figures across Europe and the United States. AUR quickly repositioned itself behind Simion, who has since cultivated his image as a nationalist firebrand and standard-bearer for disaffected voters.
Oana Popescu-Zamfir, the director and founder of the GlobalFocus Center, a Bucharest-based, independent foreign policy and security think tank, spoke to The Parliament about the significance of Dan’s victory. She described it as a reaffirmation of Romania’s pro-European path at a time of deep political disillusionment and societal polarisation.
The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
How significant is Nicușor Dan’s victory for Romania’s political direction?
It's extremely significant because we were risking a 180 degree turn in the strategic orientation of the country to the far right and to an anti-Western direction. This would have been extremely damaging for Romania, for its modernisation and for its democratic future. George Simion would have done what [Hungarian Prime Minister] Victor Orbán does, what [Slovakian Prime Minister] Robert Fico does, namely peddling anti-Western, anti-EU narratives and even anti-Ukraine narratives — a troublemaker from within the EU.
This was a race between a technocrat and a populist. How did Dan manage to build a winning coalition?
One defining aspect was the economy. Foreign and domestic investors signalled that the negative impact on the economy of a Simion win would have been felt pretty much immediately. People understood that it's one thing to be anti-establishment and to be revolutionary when you don't have to bear the cost. When it actually costs you something, it's a completely different ballgame. There was a lack of trust that Simion and his team would be able to actually provide solutions to solve this. That helped change the minds of a lot of Simion’s potential supporters.
Simion was also out of his comfort zone. He was acting as a sort of a placeholder for Georgescu, trying to be this abstract figure that embodied people's anger and anti-establishment feelings. At the end of the day, even when they want to change the system radically, people want to feel that there is someone at the helm who’s cool, composed and competent. And able to deal with the crisis. And Dan showed all of that, whereas Simion displayed none of these abilities.
What explains the scale of Simion's support, and what does his popularity say about the current state of Romanian politics?
Even the extremist vote was essentially just a desperate cry for help and attention. Simion voters are not necessarily irrational and don't necessarily see him as a provider of valued solutions. People just don't expect anything good anymore. They've lost all hope that any change is possible. So they are willing to basically burn down the house, hoping that if things go really bad, maybe somebody would notice. And then something might change about the way that politics is done in Romania.
This election was a double anti-establishment vote. Both candidates have been anti-establishment. Dan himself is an independent figure, running with support from two major parties. This election says a lot about the level of disillusionment with political elites and bad governance in Romania over the years.
Was this election in part a referendum on Romania’s place in the EU?
No, I don't think you can call it that. According to every poll in recent months a majority of Romanians remain very much attached to Romania's EU and NATO membership. I do think it was a referendum on visions of what that actually means.
For Simion’s supporters, Romania's EU membership has meant that Romania was just taking orders from Brussels without being able to have its own interests represented. Some of the narratives, which have been reinforced by Russian propaganda, were that Romania was just being treated as a second class EU member state — that EU membership was not delivering on the promises that [were] initially made.
Romania remains a very polarised society. If you live in an urban environment, then you would have benefited a lot from accession. If you are living in a village, then you might find yourself living in worse conditions in terms of infrastructure, access to education, access to health care. So I think it was about what Romania's EU membership means, not really the membership itself.
What can Brussels expect from incoming President Dan?
For Brussels it's a sigh of relief. Romania is able to continue its constructive position within the EU. It has mostly been supportive of EU unity over anything else, which distinguishes Romania from other central [and] eastern European member states. Bucharest is very much aware that its own interests [are] dependent on the strength of the EU as a whole. Efforts will be made to show Romania is a strong EU pillar, alongside efforts to preserve the transatlantic security relationship.
This election concludes months of political turmoil. Looking ahead, what are some of Romania’s political challenges?
First and foremost, there will be a new government appointed based on the new parliamentary majority. A grand coalition government is expected, and a new prime minister will be appointed by Dan. This new government will have to implement some rather painful economic reform measures. As Romania has the highest budget deficit in the EU, implementing economic measures is needed in order for Romania to be able to access EU funding.
Domestically, we still have a society that's split in half. And it's split in half along very fundamental existential questions, values and policies. President-elect Dan has repeatedly tried to profile himself as a unifier and somebody who would try and bring these radically opposing visions together. To rebuild a cohesive society, one where everyone could feel adequately represented. That's going to be a longer-term, more difficult challenge.
Internationally, Romania will need to rebuild trust at a European and international level and [reassure] partners.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.