These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Indeed, the question is: if some manipulation of the electorate takes place (through a TikTok campaign, for instance), is that enough to justify canceling the result? You say no, and I think you are right. The problem is that given the Russians' behavior--Dughin has recently made declarations that Romania will soon be Russian--and Romania's past with Russia, the pro-European part of the electorate is freaking out. The justification for the Court's decision is that the second round of voting would have coincided with the peak of Russian interference (and Georgescu would have won in an unfair way). On the other hand, it's likely he would have lost, because according to the latest polls the pro-European candidate was ahead. So there are speculations that maybe the judges wanted to favor the PSD candidate who was behind Lasconi. One small correction to your piece: the far-right candidate who was stopped from running was a she, not a he, Diana Sosoaca, who has made very strident declarations against homosexuals (among many other things). She would have never had any chance (she is the opposite of Georgescu's polished manners, a physically unappealing person). For those who are interested in more detailed descriptions about the actors in this tragi-comedy, this is my take: https://altaifland.substack.com/p/tiktok-water-energy-the-romanian
I agree with Alta. There is way more context to the situation in Romania than it may look from the outside. The situation in Romania poses a tough question for all democracies: what do you do when your elections are under attack from foreign influence, and illegality and manipulation, including illegal funding, impacts the result of the elections and you need to have an immediate response? What are the guardrails, are they effective, do we still have any left, or are we just waiting to see what happens, whether Russia gives us the next president? I assert democracies are not fully equipped to deal with such threats, Romania for sure wasn't. We will have to deal with this dilemma in the future. I have been closely familiar with Romanian politics for more than 2 decades, and I have never been more scared for Romania's future than before the Court decision, at the prospect of having a pro-Russian president who would destroy everything my parents and generations have built - Romania as a democracy, a NATO and EU member. It would probably take us years to untangle the explanations for everything that happened and have the full picture. The Constitutional Court's decision, in the timeframe that was left, was the only legal guardrail still in place. No one is happy about it, that we eneded up here, but a lot of people are relieved we still have institutions and rules. As controversial as it may be, the decision averted a dangerous outcome, obtained with foreign intereference, that would have buried Romania's democracy (not to mention its economy) and would have majorly impacted Ukraine, the EU and NATO. I published two analyses on this, one immediately after the first presidential round and the second just before the Court decided to cancel the elections. https://iuliahuiu.substack.com/p/romania-on-the-brink ; https://iuliahuiu.substack.com/p/democratic-calamity-in-romania
I don't see any further context presented in your remarks, except that a candidate you don't like won and you'd prefer to annul the election by blaming it on Russia without any evidence - all in the name of "democracy." It all sounds very familiar to me.
I am very grateful to you, Yascha, for this clarification. Because you really have to distinguish between the actual falsification of elections through the incorrect counting of votes cast or other types of manipulation of election results and influencing the opinion of eligible voters in any way whatsoever. Influencing opinion is a common practice of political parties and there have long been all kinds of actors in this field - state and privately sponsored actors from domestic and foreign organisations. But one should actually assume that the voting decision itself is an act of free will on the part of the voter. It may be regrettable that the election decision was made one way or the other, but the sovereign in a democracy is the electorate.
Thank you for opening comments, and for your article. This is a good lesson and timely for the U.S.
If media reports can be believed, the election in Venezuela was clearly stolen. But recent hot rhetoric in the U.S. has been, at best, counter-productive. We need to have confidence in our elections.
I don't feel the U.S. press is covered in glory. All the "baseless" "without evidence" language, identical language in every story by almost every news outlet, about an election that was lost by just over 40,000 votes in four states, could have been a lot more informative. It didn't inspire confidence. In fact, I hold the "media" largely responsible for the continuing lack of confidence in our election integrity right up to the present day. We need more transparency and honest, thorough coverage of any similar issue in the future. Thank goodness Trump won in a virtual landslide.
I also feel that ballot security should be something both parties support. Why not? The Democrats have resorted to a lot of talk (e.g., Stacy Abrams, "voter suppression") that undermines public confidence.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I couldn't disagree more. It's not up to citizens to prove an election is rigged, it is for election officials to prove that it was not rigged.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say, "Trust us." And I don't. We're not supposed to.
If you dispute a bill from the power company or from auto repair shop, they can't get away with "Trust us." They must document the costs. Nobody but election officials can even try to get away with, "You can't prove we're cheaters, so we must be honest."
The concerted effort by progressives and their mainstream media to sue and silence people for having the audacity of expressing doubts and wanting proof concerning the 2020 election doesn't convince me that it was honest. It convinces me that they are covering up a rigged election.
None of the elections mentioned in the above article can be proved to be dishonest. So, should we therefore assume that they were honest? It's time for Americans to recognize that there is no inherent difference between an American election and a foreign election. If a foreign election can be rigged, so can an American one.
This is a fantastic summary of the history of allegations of "voter fraud" changing election results. Funny that even though everything in your attachment was familiar to me when I read it and watched the video, to see it all in one compact package was very powerful. I hope everyone takes a look at it.
How do you prove a negative? For the last four years in the US the now president elect has made all kinds of claims about rigged elections, yet never presents any evidence.
You seemed to have missed my point. Where is the evidence of fraud in any of the elections mentioned in the article, including Venezuela? You can prove nothing, yet the entire world knows the elections were rigged. Even the White House says Maduro rigged the Venezuela election. So, where is the proof? There isn't any.
"You can't prove it" is a very weak argument. Actually, it is no argument at all. They could never prove Al Capone was a gangster, but everyone knew it. Keep in mind that, under the Trump administration, there will be brand new investigations of Jan 6 and the 2020 election. And they will present you with the proof. And you will deny it anyway.
I always love this "The Russians!" without ever acknowledging how much $$$ the CIA and State Department pours in to influence foreign elections. Probably 10-20x what Moscow invests.
Sadly not true. Sure the US has interfered in plenty of elections. It should make all Americans feel ashamed. However, it is nothing compared to the scale of Russian active measures and their systematic use of reflexive control to achieve their policy aims worldwide. I suggest you read the DOJ's recent speaking indictment of just one Russian influence campaign, in particular the appendices:
My first impression of this article, is its arrogance.
Political activism masquerading as 'commentary'.
And geopolitical activism at that.
The lack of self-awareness is startling! I'm a Brit, so we've been meddling in other peoples' affairs for centuries. Now it's been the USA's turn, and they haven't been shy either. You can accuse "Russia, Russia, Russia" all you like, but their economy, foreign 'influence' and 'meddling' is tiny compared to the USA's.
Being half-Hungarian, I'm reasonably familiar with the political and economic issues of the former USSR and its' satellites, and having travelled a lot, have pretty well circumnavigated Russia. Many of these countries have high levels of corruption, with only the trappings of a democracy (an accusation that can be levelled at many 'democracies' to-day). There are significant obstacles to the 'required' path to democracy: 'required' by whom? Outside observers? Political commentators? Many of these countries still cling to aspects of 'the good old days', the older generations especially: socialised education and socialised medicine for example.
None of this background is remotely reflected in your commentary.
I am thinking that even of the court had more evidence and facts it is till very hard and often more less impossible to convince a lager number of people that what politican X did was wfong because the court decided A, B and / or C. At the end, the process of community identification and relations between individuals have to be based on street and local level experience of dicussions, agreements and disagreements.
If we were all playing a board game with Yascha Mounk and one participant cheated to win, apparently with the help of someone not even playing it, what would he do? Would he say; 'I and the rest of you need to abide by the outcome because my standard of evidence has not been met.” It seems so. Would we agree, or would we say; “You do you, Yascha, but let’s start again, this time without the cheater and her friend”?
It feels like this debate is conducted based on assumptions on both sides not the least of which is that voters’ decisions cannot be unfairly manipulated significantly by social media campaigns. That seems reductive in the extreme. Why then does a global advertising industry worth billions upon billions of dollars exist if people cannot be swayed by messaging designed to influence their decisions? Why too has Russia devoted so much effort to information warfare for more than a century? It is because since the Bolshevik era they have amassed plentiful empirical evidence that such influence campaigns work extremely well. I’ve never understood the Western intellectual stance of downplaying or outright ignoring these successful efforts even as they are being conducted right in front of them. The Russians will be laughing with delight at Yascha Monk’s piece.
Someone cheated at the game. It is enough to say; “Let’s start again this time without the cheater and her friend.”
There will never again in the history of our species be an election that is free of "foreign interference". The ability of people from other countries to communicate with each other will never go away, and the ability of platforms and other actors to manipulate the terms of those conversations will never go away either. Even those who see or don't see this debate is up to Substack at some level.
If that's your standard for when an election is conducted "fairly" then you are signing the deed away forever. Whomever is already in charge will have the ability to decide when an outsider can win ... and those with power rarely part with it by choice.
This sounds like another reductionist argument. Your standard is a policy of despair. It need not be so. None of the other candidates in the Romanian election have accepted outside interference on their behalf. They are free to run again. And they are doing so. The incumbent is not preventing them and, indeed, had nothing to do with the court's decision.
I don't know what country you live in, but in mine it is illegal for a political party to accept foreign support. Even so it still happens. But, if a nation's courts cry foul, why is that so hard to accept?
Keep in mind Yascha, Georgescu always declared he had 0 funding for his campaign when everybody was asking him where he is getting funding from. So that was fellony. And I don’t fully understand what was the more moral reaction we should have seen here: yes the incumbents are scums and they are a big part of this predicament, but I would argue that even if they were better humans and people would have liked them more, with huge russian funding and with the right TikTok algorithms you would still manage to manipulate an election in the way it has happened now. So do you consider this a democratic election that we should have accepted it as the voice of the people? Isn’t this the voice of complex algorithms funded by russian money? How is this fair and democratic? It was the best thing that it was canceled, Romania would have not survived Georgescu/Putin.
I usually find something to disagree with in your articles but not in this case. Liberal means let people give their arguments, regardless of how horrible they seem to you. Democracy means let all qualifying adults vote on the arguments and then respect the result. Once a nations' elites start thinking they are impervious to error, they start to become tyrants.
"You have my sword." - "And you have my bow." - "And my axe." - Some Middle Earthers
I was going to offer you my balls but I see you didn't need them. 24 comments in and I'm sure you are disheartened, whether you would admit it or not. You did the right thing. Said what needed to be said, with the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand.
I lived and worked in Romania and Hungary in '22/'23, doing a bit part for a State Department aligned NGO. My brief interactions w/ that crowd made evident that they have allowed careerists to usurp states(wo)men. Hence the <milquetoast press releases and tacit approval of tyranny. This follows for the UN/intelligence community/Financial Times crowd...
It's the same thread that runs through the Romanian court officials who decided to defend "Democracy" by usurping it. We've seen this elsewhere.
I do not have the answer, but I know it is not this.
Frankly, democracy stinks. As Churchill may or may not have said, its only virtue is that there seems to be no better alternative. However, whenever a hack may be found to allow a more technocratic alternative to democracy, by all means, it should be employed. Democracy allows regular alternation of governing elites. In this way corruption by any one group does not become ingrained and the governing group is always intimidated by the possible consequences of losing power. This is the only, and I do mean ONLY, advantage of democracy. Otherwise, the “people,” just like their would-be oppressors, seek constantly to promote their personal interests, however harmful they may be to others. In an ideal world some superior wisdom (A.I.?) would determine the utilitarian optimum of public policy and that, and not the vox populi, would be the determinate of the government of all. In the meantime, every effort should made to undermine demagoguery, monopolistic control of media, scaremongering, misinformation, and so on. Liberalism should be unafraid to defend itself, even if it must compromise some of its principles to do so.
Ihre lese Ihre Artikel immer sehr gerne. Dieses Mal habe ich ausnahmsweise auch die Gelegenheit, Ihre Hintergrundrecherche durchzuschauen.
Die 52-jährige Frau ist nicht nur Bürgermeisterin einer kleinen Stadt, sondern auch die Vorsitzende der USR-Partei (12 % der Wählerstimmen bei der Parlamentswahl am 01.12.2024)
Das rumänische Verfassungsgericht hat die Teilnahme der rechtsextremen Kandidatin, Diana Sosoaca, bei der Präsidentschaftswahl abgelehnt. Ungeachtet der Tatsache, dass die Dame für den Job ungeeignet ist (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Tk83yLTHw.), hoffe ich, dass das Gericht die Ablehnung korrekt begründet hat.
Ihre Schlussfolgerung "Verrat an der Demokratie, der sich als Verteidigung verkleidet" möchte ich nicht unbedingt widersprechen, gleichwohl, weil ich das Pech gehabt habe, in Rumänien geboren zu sein, bin ich jedoch skeptisch. Ich vermute vielmehr, dass der rumänische Informationsdienst versagt hat, und das Verfassungsgericht seine Entscheidung besser begründen hätte müssen.
I am so glad that smart people like Mr. Mounk are on top of the situation in Romania, because certainly lack the bandwidth to keep up my end of a Georgetown dinner party conversation about it.
I see your point, Yascha, but my assumption is that the top court had access to intelligence reports we do not have. After all, it has come to light over the past few days that the far right candidate is closely allied with members of Iron Guard-adoring paramilitary groups in Romania. Maybe that had been flagged by intelligence reports, along with Kremlin electoral influence.
These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Indeed, the question is: if some manipulation of the electorate takes place (through a TikTok campaign, for instance), is that enough to justify canceling the result? You say no, and I think you are right. The problem is that given the Russians' behavior--Dughin has recently made declarations that Romania will soon be Russian--and Romania's past with Russia, the pro-European part of the electorate is freaking out. The justification for the Court's decision is that the second round of voting would have coincided with the peak of Russian interference (and Georgescu would have won in an unfair way). On the other hand, it's likely he would have lost, because according to the latest polls the pro-European candidate was ahead. So there are speculations that maybe the judges wanted to favor the PSD candidate who was behind Lasconi. One small correction to your piece: the far-right candidate who was stopped from running was a she, not a he, Diana Sosoaca, who has made very strident declarations against homosexuals (among many other things). She would have never had any chance (she is the opposite of Georgescu's polished manners, a physically unappealing person). For those who are interested in more detailed descriptions about the actors in this tragi-comedy, this is my take: https://altaifland.substack.com/p/tiktok-water-energy-the-romanian
Thanks, Alta — excellent article with much deeper context on Romania! (And I’ll fix the mistake now; appreciate you pointing it out.)
I agree with Alta. There is way more context to the situation in Romania than it may look from the outside. The situation in Romania poses a tough question for all democracies: what do you do when your elections are under attack from foreign influence, and illegality and manipulation, including illegal funding, impacts the result of the elections and you need to have an immediate response? What are the guardrails, are they effective, do we still have any left, or are we just waiting to see what happens, whether Russia gives us the next president? I assert democracies are not fully equipped to deal with such threats, Romania for sure wasn't. We will have to deal with this dilemma in the future. I have been closely familiar with Romanian politics for more than 2 decades, and I have never been more scared for Romania's future than before the Court decision, at the prospect of having a pro-Russian president who would destroy everything my parents and generations have built - Romania as a democracy, a NATO and EU member. It would probably take us years to untangle the explanations for everything that happened and have the full picture. The Constitutional Court's decision, in the timeframe that was left, was the only legal guardrail still in place. No one is happy about it, that we eneded up here, but a lot of people are relieved we still have institutions and rules. As controversial as it may be, the decision averted a dangerous outcome, obtained with foreign intereference, that would have buried Romania's democracy (not to mention its economy) and would have majorly impacted Ukraine, the EU and NATO. I published two analyses on this, one immediately after the first presidential round and the second just before the Court decided to cancel the elections. https://iuliahuiu.substack.com/p/romania-on-the-brink ; https://iuliahuiu.substack.com/p/democratic-calamity-in-romania
I don't see any further context presented in your remarks, except that a candidate you don't like won and you'd prefer to annul the election by blaming it on Russia without any evidence - all in the name of "democracy." It all sounds very familiar to me.
I am very grateful to you, Yascha, for this clarification. Because you really have to distinguish between the actual falsification of elections through the incorrect counting of votes cast or other types of manipulation of election results and influencing the opinion of eligible voters in any way whatsoever. Influencing opinion is a common practice of political parties and there have long been all kinds of actors in this field - state and privately sponsored actors from domestic and foreign organisations. But one should actually assume that the voting decision itself is an act of free will on the part of the voter. It may be regrettable that the election decision was made one way or the other, but the sovereign in a democracy is the electorate.
Thank you for opening comments, and for your article. This is a good lesson and timely for the U.S.
If media reports can be believed, the election in Venezuela was clearly stolen. But recent hot rhetoric in the U.S. has been, at best, counter-productive. We need to have confidence in our elections.
I don't feel the U.S. press is covered in glory. All the "baseless" "without evidence" language, identical language in every story by almost every news outlet, about an election that was lost by just over 40,000 votes in four states, could have been a lot more informative. It didn't inspire confidence. In fact, I hold the "media" largely responsible for the continuing lack of confidence in our election integrity right up to the present day. We need more transparency and honest, thorough coverage of any similar issue in the future. Thank goodness Trump won in a virtual landslide.
I also feel that ballot security should be something both parties support. Why not? The Democrats have resorted to a lot of talk (e.g., Stacy Abrams, "voter suppression") that undermines public confidence.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I couldn't disagree more. It's not up to citizens to prove an election is rigged, it is for election officials to prove that it was not rigged.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say, "Trust us." And I don't. We're not supposed to.
If you dispute a bill from the power company or from auto repair shop, they can't get away with "Trust us." They must document the costs. Nobody but election officials can even try to get away with, "You can't prove we're cheaters, so we must be honest."
The concerted effort by progressives and their mainstream media to sue and silence people for having the audacity of expressing doubts and wanting proof concerning the 2020 election doesn't convince me that it was honest. It convinces me that they are covering up a rigged election.
None of the elections mentioned in the above article can be proved to be dishonest. So, should we therefore assume that they were honest? It's time for Americans to recognize that there is no inherent difference between an American election and a foreign election. If a foreign election can be rigged, so can an American one.
https://individualistsunite.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-honest-elections?r=z324w
This is a fantastic summary of the history of allegations of "voter fraud" changing election results. Funny that even though everything in your attachment was familiar to me when I read it and watched the video, to see it all in one compact package was very powerful. I hope everyone takes a look at it.
That means you do not trust the results of the 2016 or 2024 election either. Donald Trump is - quite literally - Not Your President.
How do you prove a negative? For the last four years in the US the now president elect has made all kinds of claims about rigged elections, yet never presents any evidence.
You seemed to have missed my point. Where is the evidence of fraud in any of the elections mentioned in the article, including Venezuela? You can prove nothing, yet the entire world knows the elections were rigged. Even the White House says Maduro rigged the Venezuela election. So, where is the proof? There isn't any.
"You can't prove it" is a very weak argument. Actually, it is no argument at all. They could never prove Al Capone was a gangster, but everyone knew it. Keep in mind that, under the Trump administration, there will be brand new investigations of Jan 6 and the 2020 election. And they will present you with the proof. And you will deny it anyway.
I always love this "The Russians!" without ever acknowledging how much $$$ the CIA and State Department pours in to influence foreign elections. Probably 10-20x what Moscow invests.
Sadly not true. Sure the US has interfered in plenty of elections. It should make all Americans feel ashamed. However, it is nothing compared to the scale of Russian active measures and their systematic use of reflexive control to achieve their policy aims worldwide. I suggest you read the DOJ's recent speaking indictment of just one Russian influence campaign, in particular the appendices:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1366261/dl
Can you point to a more credible source than the DoJ?
LOL
My first impression of this article, is its arrogance.
Political activism masquerading as 'commentary'.
And geopolitical activism at that.
The lack of self-awareness is startling! I'm a Brit, so we've been meddling in other peoples' affairs for centuries. Now it's been the USA's turn, and they haven't been shy either. You can accuse "Russia, Russia, Russia" all you like, but their economy, foreign 'influence' and 'meddling' is tiny compared to the USA's.
Being half-Hungarian, I'm reasonably familiar with the political and economic issues of the former USSR and its' satellites, and having travelled a lot, have pretty well circumnavigated Russia. Many of these countries have high levels of corruption, with only the trappings of a democracy (an accusation that can be levelled at many 'democracies' to-day). There are significant obstacles to the 'required' path to democracy: 'required' by whom? Outside observers? Political commentators? Many of these countries still cling to aspects of 'the good old days', the older generations especially: socialised education and socialised medicine for example.
None of this background is remotely reflected in your commentary.
It is entirely superficial.
I am thinking that even of the court had more evidence and facts it is till very hard and often more less impossible to convince a lager number of people that what politican X did was wfong because the court decided A, B and / or C. At the end, the process of community identification and relations between individuals have to be based on street and local level experience of dicussions, agreements and disagreements.
If we were all playing a board game with Yascha Mounk and one participant cheated to win, apparently with the help of someone not even playing it, what would he do? Would he say; 'I and the rest of you need to abide by the outcome because my standard of evidence has not been met.” It seems so. Would we agree, or would we say; “You do you, Yascha, but let’s start again, this time without the cheater and her friend”?
It feels like this debate is conducted based on assumptions on both sides not the least of which is that voters’ decisions cannot be unfairly manipulated significantly by social media campaigns. That seems reductive in the extreme. Why then does a global advertising industry worth billions upon billions of dollars exist if people cannot be swayed by messaging designed to influence their decisions? Why too has Russia devoted so much effort to information warfare for more than a century? It is because since the Bolshevik era they have amassed plentiful empirical evidence that such influence campaigns work extremely well. I’ve never understood the Western intellectual stance of downplaying or outright ignoring these successful efforts even as they are being conducted right in front of them. The Russians will be laughing with delight at Yascha Monk’s piece.
Someone cheated at the game. It is enough to say; “Let’s start again this time without the cheater and her friend.”
There will never again in the history of our species be an election that is free of "foreign interference". The ability of people from other countries to communicate with each other will never go away, and the ability of platforms and other actors to manipulate the terms of those conversations will never go away either. Even those who see or don't see this debate is up to Substack at some level.
If that's your standard for when an election is conducted "fairly" then you are signing the deed away forever. Whomever is already in charge will have the ability to decide when an outsider can win ... and those with power rarely part with it by choice.
This sounds like another reductionist argument. Your standard is a policy of despair. It need not be so. None of the other candidates in the Romanian election have accepted outside interference on their behalf. They are free to run again. And they are doing so. The incumbent is not preventing them and, indeed, had nothing to do with the court's decision.
I don't know what country you live in, but in mine it is illegal for a political party to accept foreign support. Even so it still happens. But, if a nation's courts cry foul, why is that so hard to accept?
It matters who that foreign interference is. When that foreign interference is the guy who kills his opponents, it matters and it should be stopped.
Keep in mind Yascha, Georgescu always declared he had 0 funding for his campaign when everybody was asking him where he is getting funding from. So that was fellony. And I don’t fully understand what was the more moral reaction we should have seen here: yes the incumbents are scums and they are a big part of this predicament, but I would argue that even if they were better humans and people would have liked them more, with huge russian funding and with the right TikTok algorithms you would still manage to manipulate an election in the way it has happened now. So do you consider this a democratic election that we should have accepted it as the voice of the people? Isn’t this the voice of complex algorithms funded by russian money? How is this fair and democratic? It was the best thing that it was canceled, Romania would have not survived Georgescu/Putin.
I usually find something to disagree with in your articles but not in this case. Liberal means let people give their arguments, regardless of how horrible they seem to you. Democracy means let all qualifying adults vote on the arguments and then respect the result. Once a nations' elites start thinking they are impervious to error, they start to become tyrants.
"You have my sword." - "And you have my bow." - "And my axe." - Some Middle Earthers
I was going to offer you my balls but I see you didn't need them. 24 comments in and I'm sure you are disheartened, whether you would admit it or not. You did the right thing. Said what needed to be said, with the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand.
I lived and worked in Romania and Hungary in '22/'23, doing a bit part for a State Department aligned NGO. My brief interactions w/ that crowd made evident that they have allowed careerists to usurp states(wo)men. Hence the <milquetoast press releases and tacit approval of tyranny. This follows for the UN/intelligence community/Financial Times crowd...
It's the same thread that runs through the Romanian court officials who decided to defend "Democracy" by usurping it. We've seen this elsewhere.
I do not have the answer, but I know it is not this.
Well maybe THEIR constitution is a suicide pact, but surely OURS is not. Justice Jackson told us so. In a dissent, by the way.
Frankly, democracy stinks. As Churchill may or may not have said, its only virtue is that there seems to be no better alternative. However, whenever a hack may be found to allow a more technocratic alternative to democracy, by all means, it should be employed. Democracy allows regular alternation of governing elites. In this way corruption by any one group does not become ingrained and the governing group is always intimidated by the possible consequences of losing power. This is the only, and I do mean ONLY, advantage of democracy. Otherwise, the “people,” just like their would-be oppressors, seek constantly to promote their personal interests, however harmful they may be to others. In an ideal world some superior wisdom (A.I.?) would determine the utilitarian optimum of public policy and that, and not the vox populi, would be the determinate of the government of all. In the meantime, every effort should made to undermine demagoguery, monopolistic control of media, scaremongering, misinformation, and so on. Liberalism should be unafraid to defend itself, even if it must compromise some of its principles to do so.
Ihre lese Ihre Artikel immer sehr gerne. Dieses Mal habe ich ausnahmsweise auch die Gelegenheit, Ihre Hintergrundrecherche durchzuschauen.
Die 52-jährige Frau ist nicht nur Bürgermeisterin einer kleinen Stadt, sondern auch die Vorsitzende der USR-Partei (12 % der Wählerstimmen bei der Parlamentswahl am 01.12.2024)
Das rumänische Verfassungsgericht hat die Teilnahme der rechtsextremen Kandidatin, Diana Sosoaca, bei der Präsidentschaftswahl abgelehnt. Ungeachtet der Tatsache, dass die Dame für den Job ungeeignet ist (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Tk83yLTHw.), hoffe ich, dass das Gericht die Ablehnung korrekt begründet hat.
Über den ultrarechten Kandidaten, Calin Georgescu einen Link aus NZZ https://www.nzz.ch/international/praesidentschaftswahl-in-rumaenien-georgescu-fuehrt-das-rennen-an-ld.1859107.
Ihre Schlussfolgerung "Verrat an der Demokratie, der sich als Verteidigung verkleidet" möchte ich nicht unbedingt widersprechen, gleichwohl, weil ich das Pech gehabt habe, in Rumänien geboren zu sein, bin ich jedoch skeptisch. Ich vermute vielmehr, dass der rumänische Informationsdienst versagt hat, und das Verfassungsgericht seine Entscheidung besser begründen hätte müssen.
I am so glad that smart people like Mr. Mounk are on top of the situation in Romania, because certainly lack the bandwidth to keep up my end of a Georgetown dinner party conversation about it.
I see your point, Yascha, but my assumption is that the top court had access to intelligence reports we do not have. After all, it has come to light over the past few days that the far right candidate is closely allied with members of Iron Guard-adoring paramilitary groups in Romania. Maybe that had been flagged by intelligence reports, along with Kremlin electoral influence.