Romania’s Militant Democracy Moment: Defending the System, or Undermining It?

The Resistance Hub

In March 2025, Romania’s Constitutional Court upheld a controversial decision to bar far-right candidate Călin Georgescu from running in a rerun of the presidential election. The ruling came after Romania’s top electoral body invalidated the results of the December 2024 election, citing alleged Russian interference and violations of electoral law that had favored Georgescu.

Supporters of the decision framed it as a principled defense of democracy. Critics called it a dangerous precedent. At the heart of the debate lies a provocative question: can democracy protect itself without compromising its core values?

This case has become a textbook example of what political theorists call militant democracy. This doctrine grants democracies the legal authority to restrict anti-democratic actors from participating in the system they seek to dismantle. However, how this principle is applied and who decides when it’s justified remain hotly contested.

What Happened?

Călin Georgescu, a former UN official with longstanding nationalist and socially conservative views, surged in popularity in 2024 amid deep public dissatisfaction with Romania’s political elite. His platform, rooted in anti-globalist and traditionalist rhetoric, drew both domestic support and international scrutiny, particularly due to allegations of alignment with pro-Russian interests.

In December 2024, Georgescu advanced to a second-round runoff in Romania’s presidential election. However, soon after the vote, Romania’s Central Electoral Bureau and intelligence services reported credible evidence of foreign interference, vote manipulation, and campaign finance violations tied to Russian state actors.

The Constitutional Court ultimately ruled that these irregularities invalidated the outcome and scheduled a rerun of the election. Crucially, the Court also supported the decision to bar Georgescu from participating, citing Article 37 of Romania’s Constitution, which disqualifies individuals who “do not meet the conditions for electoral integrity.”

This disqualification was not criminal in nature—no court has convicted Georgescu of treason, espionage, or any crime—but rather administrative, based on national security risk assessments.

The Principle of Militant Democracy

The legal and philosophical foundation for the Court’s decision draws from the 20th-century concept of militant democracy, first articulated by German political theorist Karl Loewenstein in the 1930s. The idea emerged as a response to how democratic institutions in the Weimar Republic had allowed the Nazi Party to rise legally—only to dismantle democracy from within.

Militant democracy holds that liberal democracies can—and sometimes must—defend themselves by limiting the political participation of actors deemed hostile to democratic norms. This may include banning parties, censoring hate speech, or—as in Romania’s case—disqualifying candidates.

Countries like Germany and Israel have built this principle into law. Yet its application often generates friction between the need for resilience and the obligation to uphold pluralism and free political competition.

Supporters Say: A Necessary Defense

Proponents of the Court’s ruling argue that Romania acted responsibly and in accordance with its democratic obligations. With Russian political warfare tactics evolving—from cyberattacks to disinformation and the co-opting of domestic actors—the threat is not just theoretical.

Supporters cite:

• National Security Concerns: Intelligence officials warned of documented links between Georgescu’s campaign and Russian political operatives, including the funneling of illicit funds and the propagation of Kremlin-aligned narratives on Romanian social media.
• Electoral Integrity: The government admitted that the December 2024 election was compromised. Allowing a tainted candidate to run again would, in this view, reward foreign interference and erode public trust.
• Legal Precedent: Article 37 of the Romanian Constitution provides the legal mechanism to exclude individuals who violate democratic norms or pose national security risks—even if those violations fall short of criminal prosecution.

This interpretation views the Court not as a suppressor of democracy, but as its guardian.

Critics Warn: A Dangerous Overreach

On the other hand, the ruling has triggered alarm both within Romania and abroad. Critics argue that disqualifying a popular candidate, especially without a public trial or transparent legal process, undermines core democratic values.

Objections include:

• Democratic Legitimacy: Opponents argue that the people, not courts or intelligence agencies, should decide whether a candidate is fit for office. Removing Georgescu would deprive voters of their choice, potentially inflaming the populist discontent his campaign channeled.
• Opacity of the Process: The evidence of Russian influence has not been made public in full, leading to accusations that the Court’s ruling is based on classified or politically curated intelligence, raising concerns over due process.
• Potential for Abuse: Once a precedent is set for disqualifying candidates under vague “national security” justifications, what stops future governments from weaponizing the law against legitimate dissent?

International reactions have reflected this unease. U.S. Vice President JD Vance expressed “grave concern” over democratic backsliding. Elon Musk called the Court’s Chief Judge a “tyrant.” In Romania, protests erupted in Bucharest, with thousands claiming that the Court’s decision amounted to elite censorship.

Democratic Dilemmas

Romania now finds itself at a constitutional crossroads. The legal system has acted to restrict a candidate seen as a threat to national sovereignty. Yet that very act may have deepened divisions within society.

This case offers a real-world glimpse into a central dilemma facing modern democracies: how to defend democratic systems from subversion, without becoming undemocratic in the process.

There are no easy answers. The same tools that protect democracy from collapse can also concentrate power or eliminate dissent. Much depends on context, transparency, and institutional credibility.

In Romania’s case, public opinion remains deeply polarized. Some citizens welcome the Court’s intervention as a necessary safeguard. Others see it as a symptom of an insecure political elite unwilling to face popular discontent.

What Comes Next?

With Georgescu disqualified, Romania’s presidential rerun is expected to proceed in May 2025. Meanwhile, concerns about future interference, declining public trust, and political polarization remain unresolved.

Whether Romania’s decision will be remembered as a bold defense of democracy or as a moment of institutional overreach may depend less on the legal theory behind it and more on the long-term consequences it sets in motion.

A Question Worth Asking

As political systems worldwide confront illiberal movements, disinformation campaigns, and external manipulation, Romania’s case may be a sign of things to come.

Can a democracy protect itself without compromising what makes it democratic?