A Troubling Triumph in Romania

The annulment of Romania’s presidential election results by its Constitutional Court is, at first glance, a triumph for democracy. By nullifying the first round – narrowly won by far-right candidate Calin Georgescu amid allegations of Russian-backed interference – the Court sent a clear message: electoral integrity is not up for debate.

But is this really a victory? In truth, this decision reflects a troubling pattern in how democracies respond to crises: after the fact. The annulment is not so much a defence of democracy as a stark reminder of the limits of judicial power. Courts are, by design, reactive – they respond to violations but cannot prevent them. While the Constitutional Court took bold action to uphold democratic principles, the responsibility for addressing the systemic vulnerabilities that enabled this interference lies elsewhere: with legislators, regulators, and international frameworks.

Even more striking is what this case reveals about the shifting nature of threats to democracy. Traditionally, militant democracy has been a tool to counter domestic dangers like extremist parties or authoritarian movements. In Romania, the Constitutional Court confronted what appeared to be a domestic issue – Georgescu’s campaign – but uncovered a transnational web of manipulation. Russian-backed disinformation campaigns, amplified by TikTok algorithms, twisted the electoral process and attacked the very principles of democratic governance.

The Court’s bold decision

The Constitutional Court’s annulment of Romania’s presidential election was not an ordinary application of electoral law – it was a declaration that the very integrity of the democratic process was under siege. Faced with unprecedented evidence of external manipulation, the Court acted decisively, invoking principles of democratic self-defence.

Declassified intelligence reports from Romania’s Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT) and the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT) revealed a staggering level of interference. A network of over 600,000 bots orchestrated a TikTok campaign for Calin Georgescu, violating electoral law by failing to disclose its political nature. Even more troubling, these operations were funded through €50 million in cryptocurrency, funnelled from a Russian network operating out of South Africa. In the days leading up to the election, as much as €3 million per day was injected into this campaign.

The Court’s unanimous decision reflected a stark reality: the first round of elections was neither free nor fair. The campaign’s violations went beyond technical breaches – they represented a coordinated assault on Romania’s sovereignty and the core principles of democratic governance. The Court argued: “Voters’ freedom to form an opinion includes the right to be correctly informed before making a decision. The manipulation of digital technologies and artificial intelligence during the campaign distorted the will of the electorate and violated the principle of equal opportunity among candidates.”

​​The Court also spotlighted glaring inconsistencies in Georgescu’s campaign finances. His lavish operations bore no resemblance to the modest expenditures reported in official documents, raising alarms about undisclosed funding and foreign influence. This lack of transparency, the Court concluded, struck at the very foundation of a free and fair election.

While DIICOT is pursuing criminal investigations, the Court’s annulment was an act of militant democracy – an extraordinary measure taken to safeguard the integrity of the system itself.

A domestic threat with global roots

On the surface, Romania’s crisis seemed like a classic case of domestic populism: the rise of an ultranationalist candidate exploiting discontent. But the Court’s investigation revealed something far more complex. Georgescu’s campaign was not just a domestic phenomenon; it was the product of transnational interference. Russian disinformation networks weaponized TikTok to distort public discourse, leveraging algorithms to amplify divisive narratives and suppress rival candidates.

This hybrid threat – domestic in appearance, global in execution – presents a unique challenge for democratic states. Traditional tools of militant democracy were designed to counter internal actors threatening constitutional order. But when those actors are armed with tools provided by foreign powers, the old playbook no longer suffices.

Enter: militant democracy

Militant democracy isn’t a new idea. It has historically been a shield against internal threats, enabling states to restrict anti-democratic parties, ban extremist symbols, and even limit certain freedoms to protect democratic integrity. Germany’s post-war measures against neo-Nazi movements are the quintessential example.

In Romania, the annulment fits within this militant framework. The Court intervened to neutralize a candidate whose campaign flagrantly violated democratic principles. But the intervention came after the fact, highlighting a fundamental weakness in how militant democracy is applied: it remains reactive when it needs to be preventive.

Too much, too late?

Romania’s failure wasn’t the Court’s timing – it was the broader system’s inability to act before the crisis. Courts can intervene after damage is done, but proactive defences require the combined efforts of lawmakers, electoral commissions, and international cooperation to address vulnerabilities before they are exploited. Russian interference tactics are no secret, nor were the vulnerabilities of social media platforms like TikTok. The Kremlin’s playbook has been well-documented since at least 2016, with disinformation campaigns targeting democracies across Europe and North America, and most currently in this year’s Moldovan and Georgian elections. TikTok’s role as a vector for disinformation is well-documented, yet Romanian authorities failed to take meaningful steps to counteract these vulnerabilities before they compromised the election.

Romania’s failure to prevent this crisis underscores a broader issue: militant democracy can only go so far if other institutions fail to act in time. The Court’s role, by definition, is reactive – addressing violations after they occur. While its decision was extraordinary and necessary, it also exposes the limits of judicial power in combating modern hybrid threats. The result is an annulment that feels more like damage control than democratic defence. Worse, it risks deepening polarization. Georgescu’s supporters are already framing the annulment as evidence of an elite conspiracy, stoking populist narratives that further erode trust in institutions.

This raises a classic critique of militant measures: outlawing anti-democratic behaviour, while seemingly necessary, often intensifies support for such actors. By disqualifying Georgescu’s first-round victory and calling for new elections, the court has handed his campaign a powerful rallying cry. The backlash may fuel his supporters’ determination, heightening tensions in the next round of elections and leaving Romania more divided than ever.

The irony is clear: measures meant to safeguard democracy can sometimes undermine it, especially when they fail to address the mechanisms that made Georgescu’s rise possible. While economic frustrations, corruption, and institutional mistrust created fertile ground for discontent, it was Russian manipulation – through disinformation, algorithmic exploitation, and financial fraud – that turned Georgescu into a viable candidate. Without dismantling these tools of interference, militant measures risk becoming counterproductive, fuelling backlash without addressing the root causes of the crisis.

The transnational turn in democratic defence

Romania’s case exposes a seismic shift in how democracies defend themselves. For decades, militant democracy operated within clear national borders, targeting extremist parties or authoritarian movements at home. But in today’s hyper-connected world, where digital platforms and foreign interference intertwine, democratic self-defence must grapple with threats that transcend boundaries.

The EU has already experimented with transnational tools, using sanctions and legal mechanisms to rein in democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland. Yet even this approach raises a thorny paradox: how can democracy be defended without undermining the sovereignty of democratic states? While the EU acted as a supranational enforcer, Romania’s Constitutional Court faced an even trickier dilemma – it was a national institution tasked with dismantling a transnational threat.

This hybrid nature of modern challenges scrambles the old playbook. Can a framework built to shut down domestic extremism handle the diffuse, shapeshifting menace of foreign disinformation campaigns? Or does Romania’s experience underline the urgent need for new solutions that blend local vigilance with coordinated global action?

Romania’s annulment shines a spotlight on the limits of traditional approaches. The Court struck down the election results shaped by foreign interference, but it lacked the tools to tackle the machinery behind it – disinformation networks, unregulated algorithms, and hidden financial pipelines. The next step isn’t just protecting the vote but dismantling the systems that distort it in the first place.

Lessons from Romania

Romania’s annulment of its presidential election is a wake-up call for democracies everywhere. It’s a vivid illustration of what happens when militant democracy is used reactively, without addressing the deeper vulnerabilities that leave institutions exposed to manipulation.

First, it lays bare the dangers of ignoring systemic weaknesses. Romania’s failure to pass lustration laws after the fall of communism allowed corrupt actors to entrench themselves in democratic institutions. Decades of institutional fragility created fertile ground for both domestic populists and foreign powers to exploit. These cracks didn’t appear overnight – they’ve been widening for years, leaving Romania vulnerable to manipulation by both internal opportunists and external actors like Moscow.

Second, the case underscores the urgent need for proactive defences against transnational threats. Democracies can no longer afford to treat disinformation and manipulation as someone else’s problem. Social media platforms must be held accountable for the chaos their algorithms fuel. Governments must develop sophisticated systems to detect and neutralize disinformation campaigns. And voters must be educated to recognize digital manipulation before it undermines their trust in the democratic process. These steps aren’t just about preventing future crises – they’re about restoring faith in democracy itself.

Finally, courts can intervene to protect the integrity of elections, but they cannot be the first or only line of defence. Addressing the root causes of disinformation and manipulation – unregulated digital platforms, hidden financial pipelines, and geopolitical meddling – requires proactive collaboration across institutions and borders. Romania’s Constitutional Court has shown that militant democracy still has a place in defending democracy’s core principles. But its actions must be complemented by broader, forward-looking efforts to build resilience, transparency, and trust in the face of emerging hybrid threats.

Toward a proactive democratic defence

The annulment of Romania’s election results is dramatic, but it’s also flawed – a reactionary fix to a problem that demands long-term vision. It exposes the cracks in how democracies respond to the hybrid threats of the digital age, where domestic and transnational dangers are inextricably linked.

To truly defend democracy, Romania – and democracies everywhere – must shift from firefighting to prevention. This means reinforcing institutions by rooting out corruption, building transparency, and ensuring that the rule of law isn’t just an aspiration but a lived reality. Moreover, one must regulate digital platforms to stop them from becoming vectors for disinformation, with strict accountability for their algorithms and political advertising. Additionally, it is at most important to educate citizens to recognize manipulation, thus empowering them with the tools to resist it. Finally, it is necessary to foster global cooperation to tackle transnational threats, from cyberattacks to foreign meddling, with a united front.

Democracy’s greatest strength isn’t its ability to annul flawed elections or punish anti-democratic actors. It’s its capacity to inspire trust, foster resilience, and adapt to new challenges without losing its soul. For Romania, the road ahead isn’t just about defending its democracy – it’s about transforming it into a system strong enough to thrive in a world of hybrid threats.