Last Updated: December 6th, 19:40
We don’t yet have many clear answers, but here are some questions we’ve been receiving in the last few hours, along with what we know and don’t know.
What’s with the decision and why was it made only now?
We don’t know, and we won’t know immediately. It’s an unprecedented situation, and there’s no point in speculating. CCR decisions are mandatory as soon as they appear in the Official Gazette along with the reasoning. That’s why we see that a simple press release does not stop voting in the diaspora.
It’s important to understand that, according to the declassified documents from the CSAT meeting, state institutions consider that “Romania is a target for aggressive Russian hybrid actions, including cyberattacks, hacks and leaks, and sabotage.” Many countries are going through this, especially during election periods, but it’s not something we’ve encountered before or seem well-equipped for. That’s why it’s possible that the CCR’s reasoning is in an area where we can’t invoke a precedent or jurisprudence. Article 146 letter (f) of the Constitution is a permissive article that can cover several hypotheses that might arise in practice.
What now?
First, the decision to annul the elections must be published along with the reasoning. Then, the Government must issue a Decision to establish the calendar for the next elections. The Constitutional Court has communicated that following the annulment of the elections, the entire electoral process will be resumed. This means that if the Government Decision determining the presidential election calendar is issued anytime until December 10, they can be organized again as early as February 23, 2025. Given that the electoral process is fully resumed, yes, there can be new candidates, and there can also be new challenges regarding the validation of some candidates.
Who leads the country until then?
The current President’s term expires on December 21, 2024. There is the option to extend his term, namely in the case of a declaration of war or disaster (Article 83 paragraph (3) of the Constitution). Also, the President’s term is extended until the newly elected President takes the oath (Article 83, paragraph (2) of the Constitution). We note that one of the President’s duties is to convene the Parliament for its constitution within 20 days of the elections.
The current Parliament’s term can be extended in a state of mobilization, war, siege, or emergency until these end. Also, its term can be extended until the new Parliament legally convenes. If the President’s office becomes vacant, the interim is ensured, in order, by the President of the Senate, then the President of the Chamber of Deputies.
At this moment, we are in a situation where we do not yet have a new Parliament convened, and there are some announced challenges regarding the validation of parliamentary elections. We do not know if these challenges are justified or to what extent there will be a decision to admit them. Therefore, it is unclear what would happen in the case of the annulment of parliamentary elections, because a new Parliament is constituted, as we saw above, at the President’s convening.
Who’s to blame?
Probably many institutions and many officials could be blamed through action or inaction. We can’t tell if we’re talking about incompetence, lack of preparation, lack of capacity, or intent. What we know for sure is that an entire ensemble of institutions and existing rules failed to provide predictability to the electoral process under conditions of hybrid attacks and war. We know that Russia invaded Ukraine two and a half years ago, we know there have been interferences in the electoral processes of many other European states, which is why it is unclear why sufficient safety nets were not put in place for the eventuality of such a situation that led to the destabilization of society. The declassified CSAT documents show without a doubt that we have a very serious problem with the security of the electoral process, as noted by NATO allies.
We believe answers are needed, and that’s why we reiterate the requests made yesterday along with Declic: the hearing of services in parliamentary committees to find out to what extent they did (or did not) do their job, an analysis by the CSM regarding how judicial system institutions did (or did not) do their job, and an analysis of how the CCR fulfilled its duty under Article 146 letter (f), given that we went through a recount request, the rejection of some challenges, a validation decision, and now a decision to annul the first round of presidential elections.