The correct key to analyze Diana Șoșoacă’s removal from the presidential race by the Constitutional Court is the depersonalization of the case, precisely because the protagonist is such a polarizing character. The question, therefore, is not whether it is good that Diana Șoșoacă cannot run.
The question is whether it is right for the Constitutional Court, practically a majority of 5 politically appointed individuals, to decide who can and who cannot run not based on procedural or legal criteria of candidacy, not based on the conditions required of the candidate by art.37 of the Constitution, but based on an evaluation of the candidate's statements.
The firm negative answer comes from the Constitutional Court, in a decision from a time when the Court had not yet become a nuclear political weapon in the hands of politicians. Decision no. 9/1992:
"According to the provisions of art. 35 combined with art. 34 of the Constitution, the only moral indignity that constitutes an impediment for a person to run is the loss of electoral rights as a result of a conviction decision.
The Court (...) verifies whether the Central Electoral Bureau, through the adopted solution, took into account the provisions of art. 9, 10, and 11 of Law no. 69/1992, without examining any of the grounds of indignity invoked by the contestant.
Regarding the merits or shortcomings of the candidate who has submitted and whose candidacy has been registered, the citizens express their opinion on the day of the elections by exercising their right to vote."
Law 69/92 has changed, of course, but the constitutional principle remains the same, and the Constitutional Court has crossed it for the first time, with a narrow majority of 5 judges.
The Council of Wise Men sorts out candidacies based on candidates' opinions in Iran. In a democracy, anyone who meets the legal requirements can run, and the electorate decides on their suitability for the position.
The electorate can make mistakes? Yes, it often does. But any other method of selection is not democracy, and democracy is, as Churchill said, "the worst form of government except for all those that have been tried from time to time."
The precedent thus created is extremely dangerous. Today we may approve of Diana Șoșoacă's removal, but tomorrow the same type of decision could be applied to anyone based on any criteria of opinion. And if we do not oppose it now, will we be able to resist later? It is called the only measure, the importance of which we may ultimately understand.
The widespread reaction of revolt in society, in solidarity not with Șoșoacă, but with democracy, is a test of passed maturity. Although I notice quite a bit of hypocrisy. I do not understand how politicians who not long ago demanded the outlawing of AUR or PSD can be so outraged.
Was the CCR-Șoșoacă Decision Politically Commanded?
I could grant PSD the presumption of innocence, even if from a simplistic political calculation, it benefits from Diana Șoșoacă's removal, but a party leader, Mr. Dan Nica, with a mischievous smile on his lips since Wednesday evening announced Diana Șoșoacă's withdrawal as "one of the very interesting moves in these days".
How is it that all the judges proposed by PSD "withdrew" Mrs. Șoșoacă, according to Mr. Nica's prediction?
Why would PSD be interested in Diana Șoșoacă's elimination? Because, following Klaus Iohannis's example in 2019, Marcel Ciolacu has every interest in choosing the most accessible opponent in the second round.
It would have been ideal, beyond the façade of the PSD-PNL confrontation, for this to be Nicolae Ciucă, for a calm power sharing, already proposed by Mr. Ciolacu with the prime minister included.
But Mr. Ciucă is not taking off electorally, so a plan B is needed, that is, returning to the extremist danger under which, wasn't it?, June 9th took place. With George Simion, it would be a re-edition of the 2000 finale and an easy victory for Marcel Ciolacu. But Simion can only reach the second round if he recovers Diana Șoșoacă's percentages.
Boomerang Effect
However, the home calculation does not match the market calculation. And the possible plan turns against PSD like a boomerang.
Although the expectation was for people to welcome the cleansing of the campaign by eliminating the filth, of course, Diana Șoșoacă, the public opinion reacted, to a large extent, fundamentally correctly, and PSD became suspected of attempting to manipulate the electoral list.
And hence exactly the effect that PSD avoided like the plague because it has always been the cause of losing the presidential elections: irritating the electorate, which would come to vote out of frustration against the party that wants all the power through cunning and combinations.
On the electoral enhancement side of George Simion, things are not so simple.
Diana Șoșoacă did not run to win the elections. She knows she cannot, she is much more rational and pragmatic than she appears. She ran for the same reason other candidates with no chance but with small parties behind them entered the race: to enhance them, as locomotives, for the parliamentary elections.
A party-enhancing candidacy aims to create as much scandal as possible. The CCR decision is a godsend. It victimizes Diana Șoșoacă, radicalizes her electorate, and massively increases her chances for the parliamentary elections.
It is out of the question to urge people to vote for George Simion. Why would she, when the parliamentary elections are just a week away? She would also give him those votes, implicitly. We see that Mrs. Șoșoacă has already positioned herself: "Never vote for Simion, the traitor of the Romanian people, the greatest traitor of the nation. Never!"
Theoretically, there is a possibility that the SOS party's electoral list will also be rejected, but a court decision is needed, it is not within the competence of the CCR. And the scandal would be so great that I do not know if PSD can afford such irritation with such political costs.
This does not mean that other candidates will not trigger the battle for Mrs. Șoșoacă's electorate. And you reach them with a certain type of language and certain ideas. Instead of being quarantined, consolidated in one candidacy, they will spread throughout the electoral discourse, anyway with very little substance.
So from any perspective, the CCR decision causes constitutional anomalies incompatible with democracy and greater political losses than potential benefits.