The danger of extremism and the magnetism it exerts on many people is far from over. We have only a respite until the presidential elections, most likely in March-April, to prepare for a new impact, and the outcome of these preparations will determine whether it will be lethal for Romanian democracy and society.
And preparation should start with understanding the signal sent by the November 24 vote.
What is there to understand?
Of course, some of Călin Georgescu's voters are incurable conspiracy theorists, others are unyielding anti-globalists, some are fascinated by healers or charlatans, homophobes, radical nationalists. They will probably remain steadfast in their positions and would vote for any candidate who satisfies their beliefs.
But I don't think they are the majority in Călin Georgescu's electorate. If they were, the phenomenon would have manifested long ago.
The majority of those who chose this option are people extremely angry at the entire political class and radicalized due to repeated disappointments. They did not vote for Georgescu as a person; some didn't even know much about him, but they voted out of their own frustrations.
They are joined by a social group that no one addresses, that no one reaches, which feels disregarded by both leaders and the rest of society, people who felt that for the first time someone was addressing them through the only accessible vehicle, TikTok, entertainment at everyone's fingertips, without financial or intellectual effort.
The main effort in the coming months, until the presidential elections, must be to regain as much as possible from these two categories, who should receive the first clear signals that things are starting to change. It is essential to urgently rebuild trust in state institutions, in voting, and democracy.
First sign - formation of the Government
If parties start with the same non-transparent negotiations, solely focused on positions to be shared regardless of whether they have qualified people for them, if they come with the same worn-out figures and discredited ministers, the signal will be very negative.
People want to see new, educated figures with serious careers behind them, who have completed their studies on time.
Then, it will be very important how the future governance will begin. The first condition will be transparency and honesty. Many people are willing to accept even unpopular measures as long as they are explained simply and credibly. If they start again with populism, deceit, grandiose words, and bluster, tensions will continue to rise.
Similarly, if they start quarreling, throwing mud at each other, while miraculously agreeing on dividing sinecures and money. A large part of the voting result was a consequence of the fact that for years political debate and electoral confrontation have been equated with disgusting bickering.
It won't be easy, as this beginning of governance will overlap with the presidential campaign, but business as usual no longer works, an era has ended, the world has changed.
Elections based on electoral bribes, buckets, and T-shirts, countryside gatherings, mayors lining up people to vote are over. The campaign is conducted with different means, different messages, and those who do not understand will perish, as the dinosaurs did.
Who will run for president?
Then, the new candidacies will be essential.
I hope that none of the candidates from the pro-European camp with real chances to reach the final, at least, will be from the list that ran on November 24. The candidates with chances in the just-annulled elections were a disgrace to Romanian politics, the weakest and most embarrassing lineup in the last 35 years.
Mr. Ciolacu has received the measure of electoral traction, has shown all his cracks and limitations; it would be huge for him to remain, circumstantially, as prime minister. Mr. Ciucă obtained a lamentable score, he is already completely discredited.
And Mrs. Lasconi made it to the final only on the wave of anti-extremist fear, for which she also received the votes of people terrified by her inadequacy.
And the reactions after the CCR decision, the first resembling an angry housewife smashing pots against the wall because her cake cream was cut, followed by the beyond embarrassing letter to Donald Trump, are essential examples that she has no place at Cotroceni.
After the disastrous experience of this autumn, we need strong, suitable candidates who can also attract positive votes, not just out of fear of something worse or out of anger. Candidates who can re-legitimize the electoral competition and the presidential function after the lamentable decade of Iohannis.
Should there be a common candidate?
Whose? PSD-PNL would relieve some pressure on the new government, which cannot do without the two parties.
But it would directly point to the arguments and plans of the stability coalition severely sanctioned at the polls. Moreover, it would face the major obstacle from spring: should it be from PSD or from PNL.
If the Prime Minister is from PSD, it would be logical for the candidate to be from PNL, which has a formidable potential candidate in Ilie Bolojan. But would PSD pull even more weight if they have the leadership of the government in tow? Would PNL take the government leadership and PSD the presidential candidacy? It's hard to believe that the Social Democrats would accept.
Should USR-PNL have a common candidate? The same question. Who? I don't see which party would give up in favor of the other, especially since the issue of an exchange with the prime minister's position cannot even be raised.
I hear Nicușor Dan's candidacy being mentioned, as an independent supported by, let's say, the right. Personally, I have long said that I do not believe in the solution of an independent president who would actually be a useless president.
The exclusive prerogatives are very few, most of the important ones cannot be efficiently exercised except through a party or a coalition controlled by the president.
But beyond that, before seriously discussing this candidacy, we should see the electoral traction Nicușor Dan has beyond the borders of the Capital because, like it or not, Romania, with its rural and small urban areas, is not just a larger Bucharest.
Moreover, since we are under the sign of Russia, I don't know if Matei Păun's friend is the most suitable candidate.
From my point of view, the most honest approach would be an offer of candidates from major parties, convincing, with discourse and projects.
Only in this way, not with tricks like a common candidate voted out of fear, can you calm the wave of those so upset that they were willing to credit a charlatan.
Most likely, he will no longer be able to run, but the demand will generate supply. George Simion has already taken up the standard.