How Romania’s crisis made Hungarian politicians acknowledge Russian threats

On the 6th of December, Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of the November presidential election, which was won by Călin Georgescu, a far-right populist pro-Russian candidate. Georgescu was particularly active in his campaign on TikTok, where he spread polarising and provocative messages.

According to reports by Romanian intelligence services and state authorities, the campaign was aided by secret Russian funding and financial irregularities. Tens of thousands of pseudo-profiles and nearly a hundred paid influencers were involved in promoting the candidate. The Constitutional Court’s decision was a precedent: the annulment of the results of a democratic election was a rare and unprecedented event in the region.

The second round of elections is expected to take place in March 2025, but the campaign has already sparked much controversy, particularly over the effectiveness of Russian disinformation techniques and the manipulation of social media platforms.

Hungarian reactions: relativisation and concern

According to Telex, in Hungary, political reactions initially put the significance of the events in Romania into perspective. Speaking at a forum on the 5th of December, László Kövér, the speaker of parliament, claimed that criticism of Russian intervention was a double standard. According to him, while Russia’s support is a scandal, other foreign actors – such as groups linked to George Soros – treat similar activities as democracy-building. At the same time, Kövér criticised Georgescu’s political past, comparing it to the fascist movements between the two world wars.

On 12 December, Gergely Gulyás, the minister in charge of the prime minister’s office, was more cautious. He said the Hungarian government was not taking sides in Romania’s domestic political processes, but described the Constitutional Court’s ruling as a new chapter in the European rule of law. Gulyás suggested that the review of the election results could set a precedent whereby state authorities could arbitrarily annul elections.