Nicușor-Daniel Dan, the mayor of Bucharest and founder of the neo-liberal USR (Save Romania Union) party, won the second round of the Romanian presidential elections, marking the end of a six-month period full of political developments. An “independent” candidate, backed by liberal parties, European big business and the Concordia Group, one of Romania’s biggest employer organizations, Dan will most likely hold the position of president for the next five years.
The election was polarizing in the two weeks between the two rounds. Legitimate anger at the effects of capitalism and liberal policies was juxtaposed with equally legitimate fears of right-wing populism, which is growing in strength in the West and more recently in the Balkans (for more information on the background to the elections, see: Romania’s political chaos – court annuls presidential election, parliamentary parties struggle to form coalition |)
The second round a second time
Immediately after the first round of elections, it was clear that the Romanian population, from parliamentary politicians to the poorest strata of the working class, would be massively polarized. This was not only due to the level of support for the two candidates, but also injected from above, through the mainstream media and the statements of various politicians. They seized the opportunity to create the impression of a ‘culture war’ on the American model.
In the US, for several decades, the bourgeois class has succeeded in exaggerating the differences between the two dominant parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Although supported and financed by the same class of billionaires, the Democrats and the Republicans have long been perceived as fundamentally opposed.
Similarly, the Romanian bourgeois press and politicians, as well as their supporters in the West, have exaggerated Nicușor’s politics. For example, he has been treated as a true ally of queer people and women, despite his clearly queerphobic and misogynist politics. This is reflected in his loyalty to the “traditional family” as the basic unit of bourgeois, class society.
Nicușor’s diplomatic language of a classical bourgeois politician allowed the creation of an image of a man both tolerant and Christian, patriotic and European. In short, the embodiment of liberalism and the whole post-Cold War system, which is now in decline.
In contrast, Simion was presented as an existential danger to liberalism. The right wing populist promised radical change and was perceived by some of the most disenfranchised in society as a bringer of hope. Nicușor’s campaign said Simion was Trump-like and held queerphobic and racist sentiments. In turn, Simion’s camp portrayed Nicușor as a fierce fighter against nationalism, patriotism and all traditional values.
Liberal politicians denounced Simion as both a fascist and a communist; a victory for Simion would see the collapse of everything civilized.
However, neither of the candidates was really interested in changing the status of queer marriage (currently illegal), or abortion (legal but inaccessible to many).
What is needed is a lucid analysis of their politics, unclouded by electoral fog.
Though in very different ways, both candidates have advocated similar policies in everything from economic direction, how they intend to navigate class pressures from the working class and bourgeoisie, and how they will prioritize the budget.
Both candidates advocated harsh austerity measures, similar to or much worse than the “Little Train Ordinance”. This was a cuts and wage freeze package launched earlier this year by the government while avoiding tax increases for Romania’s richest and most powerful bourgeois (maintaining the single tax rate and even promising them extra tax breaks).
Thus, the two-week election campaign “culture war”, which will probably disappear as quickly as it came, served a clear purpose for the bourgeoisie, presenting austerity as necessary and inevitable to get out of the budget crisis. Two political camps, which overnight became the only two existing forms of politics, putting forward the same poverty, but sold differently.
However, there is one significant difference between them: on whose behalf they want to implement these policies.
How did Nicușor win?
This sad situation was seen by most of the population as a negative vote. In the case of the new president, Nicușor, he won on the back of a strong mobilization from diverse social strata against “sovereignism”. Nicușor’s enthusiastic supporters, represented by the urban middle class, academics and NGOs funded by Western corporations, were only a vocal minority of the total vote. Just as the xenophobic, misogynist and ultra-nationalist voters supporting Simion were only a minority.
Against the backdrop of an online campaign with a clearly euroliberal slant, a surprising number of public figures called on people to vote for Nicușor Dan. This presents the elections through the framework of Russophobic war propaganda, creating the idea that EU membership is at stake in the elections.
But this narrative is at odds with the right-wing populists’ clear adoption of a pro-US stance, rather than pro-EU or pro-Russia. George Simion had also travelled around the EU in recent weeks, meeting with allies in the so-called “sovereignist” movement, a specifically Western far-right political trend.
Adding anxieties about a possible economic shock caused by further attacks from the European Commission, on top of fears about possible attacks against women, queer people and other groups facing specific oppression, the vote for Nicușor increased in the second round. This was especially among workers who did not vote in the first round.
In the case of the vote in Szeklerland, in eastern Transylvania, where most of the population is non-Romanian, the vote was a choice between “sovereignist” policies, popular by association with Hungary’s prime minister Orbán, and voting against Romanian chauvinism. The latter position was put forward by the candidate supported by RMDSZ/UDMR, the party of the Hungarian-speaking bourgeoisie in the region.
During the campaign, Orbán subtly hinted at his support for Simion, but quickly withdrew it. Orbán reaffirmed his support for RMDSZ following a wave of criticism inside Hungary that categorized his decision as a betrayal of the Hungarian-speaking population.
What happens now?
On the night the votes were counted, both George Simion and Nicușor Dan were in the lead for a while. Immediately after the first votes were tallied, Simion declared himself president of Romania, in a manner reminiscent of Donald Trump’s 2020 move.
But this did not last a day. Simion now claims that the elections were rigged, citing the support that the bourgeois class in Europe gave to Nicușor in the campaign and Nicușor’s alleged vote buying. The CCR (Constitutional Court of Romania) promptly rejected Nicușor’s request to annul the elections. It seems the ruling class wants to avoid, at least for the time being, deepening the crisis in which it finds itself.
Simion’s Facebook post announced that he sent the annulment request and that he will continue to fight from the opposition. This statement garnered over a hundred thousand likes. This indicates that although Simion has taken a political blow, this is only a temporary setback.
In the absence of a working-class political alternative, AUR and other right-wing populists are seen by many people who are outraged by the harmful effects of liberal capitalism as the main opposition force. Although Simion and Georgescu have espoused policies similar to Nicușor’s, they expect that after five years in opposition, at most, they will rise on the back of Nicușor Dan’s declining popularity. If, after four years of Joe Biden, Trump returned to power, the same situation could take shape in the coming years in Romania,.
Although Nicușor is enjoying a certain political honeymoon, at the time of writing, with his victory being celebrated by his most enthusiastic voters, this situation will not last long.
As with many other heads of state who have won elections since 2020, the new president will have to rule under increasingly drastic class pressures. Sooner or later Nicușor Dan will end up clearly supporting the richest capitalists, which will lead to a serious decline in his popularity.
The new president is known among militant labor and socialists as a true soldier in the class struggle, fighting on the side of the bourgeoisie. Like Simion, Nicușor Dan has repeatedly declared that he will continue to defend the flat-rate tax, taking a clear stand against progressive taxation. Thus, the richest employers in Romania will continue to pay the same percentage of their income as the most precarious workers. This means that the working class will end up paying disproportionately for whatever the budget entails.
Militarisation
Nicușor Dan considers it a priority that more money be spent on militarization; motivated by the bourgeois class’s intention to increase the arms market. This will mean that money that “doesn’t exist” for promised wage increases, new jobs, education and health, etc., will instead be redirected to German and American arms companies. It is important to note that the only difference a Simion victory would have made would have been a higher ratio of American and Romanian arms corporations to German arms companies.
Justified as bringing “security”, militarization is an excuse used by the bourgeoisie to ensure that an ever-decreasing percentage of the state budget will be used for social services that the working class needs. This goes hand in hand with war propaganda. This was ever present in the election campaign. It portrayed war as inevitable. The people on the other side of the possible frontlines are dehumanized in a racist manner to maintain a state of anxiety among the Romanian population, as if they were in danger of being attacked by wild animals.
In this case, this propaganda takes the Russophobia form. This is a monstrous union of nationalist sentiments, left by Ceaușescu’s scepticism towards the Kremlin – a legacy to the Romanian bourgeoise of today – and the more recent campaign of fear-mongering against Russia in countries, like Germany, to support the interests of European imperialism in Ukraine. Like Putin’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda in support of the reactionary invasion of Ukraine, these actions have no other aim than to divide the working class along national lines. This enables the ruling classes in their struggle with each other for domination over markets and resources in Eastern Europe.
In the next five years, more than ever before, we will see more and more propaganda of this kind. It is important that workers and socialists oppose it. A Romanian employee will always have much more in common with a Russian worker than with a Romanian or European employer. The solution for the working class can only come through a workers’ politics independent of the USA, the EU, Russia or any other imperialist Great Power.
An anti-war movement, united on both sides of the frontlines, and based on strikes in the armaments factories to stop the military machine of both sides, would have the power to stop the atrocities and show a way to a world free of wars for profit.
But for the time being the question is: who will pay for militarization? The answer of capitalist politicians is clear: the working class.
Even if they promise that the money for tanks will not be taken from schools or hospitals, but through a simple reform of state apparatus, reminiscent of Trump’s actions at the beginning of his current term, Nicusor and the next government will most likely be faced with the choice between militarization and the welfare of the majority. As with Germany, which recently removed the debt ceiling on the maximum amount of debt they can take on, using the “need” for militarization as the main argument, it is very likely that in the next five years we will see major changes in the economy to support anti-worker policies like militarization.
The defunded, almost non-functional schools and hospitals are also convenient for the political tradition from which Nicușor-Daniel Dan comes. As the founder of USR, he is radically pro-privatization.
A tactic used to justify privatizations in other countries and throughout history is to decrease the budget for health, education and other social services until they become virtually non-functional. The only solution they offer to this problem, which they caused themselves, is to turn schools and hospitals into private companies run by private owners.
Nicușor said during a strike by the Bucharest subway workers that strikes were “immoral”, waging a fierce battle with employees who refused to accept much too low wages. Whether you work for the state or not, the new president wants you to shut up and be paid as little as possible while prices continue to rise.
Such a move would not only diminish the bargaining power of workers in education and health care but would remove the welfare of the people. The goal of bourgeois politicians is for these institutions to be mere profit-generating for employers. The fact that neoliberal politicians claim that these changes would be for the good of the people (claiming that “the state is incompetent” in administering social services, while holding the highest positions in state leadership), only makes their hypocrisy clear.
Privatizing social services would do more than just change management from bureaucrats of the bourgeois state to bosses directly; it would make them no longer social services.
The program of George Simion and AUR (Alliance for the Union of Romanians) is the same almost to the letter. However, it is quite possible that they will try to co-opt the protests that will arise if Nicușor tries to partially privatize health or education.
In such a scenario, the most radical strata of the labour movement will have to wage a fight against the co-optation of the protests by bourgeois politicians. The political independence of the anti-privatization, anti-austerity protests must be ensured by a working class leadership.
They should also be oriented towards strikes, towards stopping economic activity, which hits the bourgeois directly in the pocket, going further than a simple protest march.
Nicușor Dan most likely dreams of a private education and healthcare system. But he will postpone such ambitions if he thinks they would lead to too much social impact, strikes and protests or to the rise in popularity of the “sovereignist” opposition.
In the case of the more modest austerity measures, Nicușor Dan is more than likely prepared to take the fight to any opponents. We must now prepare to stand up to it as a working class. Any pay cut or wage freeze, any cut in allowance or pension, any cut in benefits, are not “necessary evils” but a declaration of war against working class people.
PSD, government or opposition?
The budget crisis was created amid the lack of taxation of the wealthy and the constant funnelling of money to corporations and bosses, as well as the profit rate crisis. Given this, the elites are pushing for further cuts, militarization, or any measure that can ensure that the rate of them funnelling money into their pockets will not decrease more than it already has. At the same time, workers, for whom the cost of living continues to rise, will be put in the position where they will have to fight back against austerity. Workers may also have to go on the offensive, demanding wages that keep up with the rate of inflation.
The subject of austerity will undoubtedly become one of the most polarizing topics in the coming years. Just the anticipation of the possibility that under Nicușor such measures will be implemented creates anxiety, both among USR and PNL, who are preparing for a (highly justified) decline in popularity in the next five years after the launch of these attacks.
The liberal parties and right-wing populism seem to be locked in a conflict with well-defined rules. Whichever party won the second round would have made “reforms” in the interests of capital, trying to justify their decisions as being for a “better economy”. The opposition would have tried to exploit popular anger.
After the conclusion of the second round of elections, Marcel Ciolacu has decided to resign from the presidency of PSD. The fact that Crin Antonescu, the candidate of the PSD-led coalition did not make it past the first round, was the last straw for the party. The PSD did not openly support any candidate in the second round, partly due to dissatisfaction with the drift towards PNL-ism and USR-ism expressed by the lower layers of the party.
The two tendencies now clashing within the PSD seem to be that one faction wants to go into opposition, allowing a minority Liberal government to form, while the other wants to move even closer to these parties and adopt their Eurocentric discourse. This means supporting austerity if it is done in the name of the EU. The first of these enjoys the support of the party’s base. The PSD leadership seeks to maintain the course of the increasingly rightward drift that Romania’s first capitalist party has been on for years, thus entering government with the PNL and USR.
The new PSD president, Sorin Grindeanu, differs from Ciolacu only in one respect; he prioritizes stability in the party and claims to be willing to hold internal discussions until a decision is made that will not cause any political splits. Following Grindeanu’s assumption of the party’s presidency, several influential figures in the PSD have openly positioned themselves against entering the government or in favour of a shift towards a “genuine social-democratic doctrine”.
Figures like Victor Negreanu see the need to create the impression of an alternative to the other two political directions. He describes himself as being opposed to both currents, claiming that “the fight against extremism and libertarianism continues”. He proposes as an alternative that “the PSD doctrine must be people and their problems”.
While we agree that an alternative to austerity is more than necessary, we are aware that the PSD, which condemned working people to austerity earlier this year, has no other interest than to regain the relevance it lost seemingly overnight.
As with every PSD action since its inception, a possible shift to the opposition in parliament, as a check against austerity, is a position that the PSD is being forced into by the pressure it anticipates from the working class.
The PSD is the party of “social partnership”, seeking to bring both workers and employers, representing two groups with completely opposing interests, to the discussion table. The fact that the bourgeoisie always seems to get what it wants at the expense of the working class is no accident. They have power where it matters most, in the workplace. That is why discussions at the same table only create illusions that something can only be changed by words, while the real power remains in the hands of the bosses.
The PSD is to blame for the current political situation. More and more workers are voting with “sovereignists” or liberals in protest against them.
The solution of a few PSDists is to distance the PSD from their recent months’ stance of close relations with the CCR, and with a judiciary with increasingly anti-democratic tendencies. They want the PSD to adopt a western social-democratic policy, with a greater focus on social welfare. The western parties they want to emulate, however, are also notorious for betraying working people and ultimately forcing austerity. This is seen in the most recent example of Keir Starmer’s Labour government in the UK.
To successfully defend workers and youth against austerity and to fight for increasingly better working and living conditions, we cannot rely on any of these camps, from the “sovereignists” to the liberals or the PSD. The only context in which the PSD at least tries to pretend to be on our side is only through pressure from below. This is through strike action and pressure inside the unions. This puts fear in the PSD.
The most powerful and unrestricted form of opposition is and will remain the class struggle. For all those who want to oppose any kind of austerity and any other attack on working class people in all their diversity, this is the only way forward.
A new political force is needed if the energy of the working class is not to be dragged down in the coming years or become a mere electoral support base for the PSD or worse, a populist right-wing party with an oppressive and divisive policy.
The struggle for such a force can begin with the trade unions, from Nicușor Dan’s old nemesis, the largest workers’ organizations. But they must first be regained as a weapon of class struggle from the current leadership, who are treacherous to workers’ interests in many cases, and servile to bourgeois politicians.
In the economic battles that will take place between workers and the austerity-hungry bosses and their political representatives, workers will have to break through this union bureaucracy.
Militant trade unions, reclaimed from bureaucratic hands, will be a basis for a real political alternative – a workers’ party with socialist policies. Such a party could achieve more than the promise of things not getting worse. It would also fight against the big corporations, whether EU, US or Romanian, for a different society, where the only purpose of the economy is the needs of the majority, based on public ownership and democratic workers’ control and management. Building a political movement to struggle to transfer power to the working class in a socialist transformation is crucial.
In the absence of such a party of our own, bourgeois politicians, regardless of political colour, want to make us accept our fate until the next elections, or support a false opposition that wants the same throne. Let’s show them it’s not up to them!
Until the next elections, let’s advance the workers’ movement as far as possible! An alternative is possible, let’s build it!