أخبار المركز
  • معالي نبيل فهمي يكتب: (فرصة ترامب لتحديد مستقبل الشرق الأوسط)
  • سارة عبدالعزيز سالم تكتب: (النمو المستدام: تحولات صناعة الفعاليات الخليجية في عصر التكنولوجيا)
  • مركز المستقبل يتيح العدد الثالث من مجلة "اتجاهات آسيوية"
  • أ. د. حمدي عبدالرحمن يكتب: (الخروج الثاني: عواقب أجندة ترامب في مناهضة المناخ على إفريقيا)
  • د. إبراهيم فوزي يكتب: (المعضلة الروسية: المسارات المُحتملة لأزمات الانتخابات في جورجيا ورومانيا)

The Russian Dilemma

Potential Trajectories of the Electoral Crises in Georgia and Romania

30 يناير، 2025


In the final quarter of 2024, the electoral process in two Eastern European countries revealed a political phenomenon demanding careful analysis. These nations faced unprecedented constitutional crises immediately following the announcement of election results. The validity and integrity of the elections were called into question, with some results annulled due to alleged foreign interference. Consequently, forces refusing to concede defeat took to the streets in protest. The situation indicates a troubling shift in certain European nations, where elections have transformed from a peaceful mechanism for resolving disputes among political factions into a primary driver of a vicious cycle of political instability.

On December 6, 2024, the Constitutional Court of Romania issued a landmark ruling, annulling the results of the first round of presidential elections held on November 24, just two days before the scheduled second round. Citing evidence of tampering with the results, the court mandated a complete rerun of the elections.

In Georgia, a similar situation unfolded as opposition parties refused to recognize the results of the parliamentary elections held on October 26, claiming the process was unfair. They boycotted the parliament, which held its first session on November 25, labeling it "unconstitutional." The opposition took to the streets in weeks-long protests, demanding a rerun of the parliamentary elections.

A striking commonality between the annulment of presidential election results in Romania and the opposition's demands to overturn parliamentary election results in Georgia emerged: accusations of direct foreign interference by Russia. Allegations surfaced that Russia supported pro-Russian figures and parties in these electoral arenas, manipulating outcomes to undermine pro-Western candidates and factions.

Equally noteworthy, the recurrence and intensification of these electoral crises in both countries are tied to a broader geopolitical struggle. Russia and the European Union find themselves locked in a competition to influence the foreign policy directions of Black Sea nations, which lie geographically close to Moscow's traditional sphere of influence.

In light of the above, the following analysis explores the primary reasons behind the repeated electoral crises in Romania and Georgia, focusing on allegations of Russian interference in the elections. Additionally, it examines potential paths these crises may take, whether towards resolution or further escalation.

Motivations Behind the Crises

Several Black Sea countries, particularly Romania and Georgia, face recurring electoral and constitutional crises due to various factors. The most prominent reasons include:

1- Accusations of Russian interference in election results:

Romanian President Klaus Iohannis declassified intelligence reports presented to the Supreme Council of National Defense, exposing severe Russian-launched cyberattacks targeting the presidential elections. The attacks utilized thousands of fake TikTok accounts to promote Calin Georgescu, the pro-Moscow far-right candidate. Romanian sources indicated that Georgescu's unexpected lead in the first round, securing 22.94% of the vote despite polling at no more than 5% in most surveys, was attributed to his campaign receiving Russian donations worth one million euros. Additionally, the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs highlighted Russian propaganda agencies conducting cyberattacks against the elections, employing methods similar to those attempted in Moldova's October elections this year.

In a parallel development, opposition leaders in Georgia labeled the parliamentary election results a "constitutional coup" orchestrated entirely under the direction of "Russian apparatuses." Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, who heads the opposition front, stated in her speech before the European Parliament on December 18 that the formation of the Georgian parliament was the outcome of "Russian-style tactics." Two days later, she elaborated that these tactics amounted to a "Russian electoral war," in which the ruling Georgian Dream party employed violence against voters, engaged in ballot fraud, breached data confidentiality, and politicized judicial rulings.

Zourabichvili also declared her refusal to recognize the newly elected president, former footballer Mikheil Kavelashvili, who was chosen by the parliament on December 14. She argued that the parliament itself was illegitimate and that recognizing Kavelashvili would equate to Tbilisi succumbing to "Russian hybrid wars."

Consequently, repeated indications of Moscow's interference in European elections have disrupted the transfer of power in Romania, while complicating the political landscape in Georgia. The opposition insists on rerunning the parliamentary elections, while the ruling party refuses to engage in negotiations.

2- Rivalry between Moscow and the West for influence in the Black Sea region:

The rivalry between Russia and the West transforms every election that could potentially shift a government's alignment into a deeply contentious event, marked by mutual accusations of interference and fraud. This heightened tension stems from the strategic importance of the Black Sea region for both parties.

Moscow continues to operate in this region based on the principles of the 1945 Yalta Conference, which aimed to ensure Russian dominance in its geographical vicinity. Despite the Soviet Union's dissolution, Russia maintains strong historical and cultural ties with Tbilisi and Bucharest, wielding significant influence among a broad segment of political elites and parties.

The geopolitical significance of both countries underscores this influence. Georgia, sharing a border of approximately 1,000 kilometers to Russia's south, has seen Moscow effectively control one-fifth of its territory since the 2008 occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Romania, bordering southern Ukraine, serves as the primary gateway for Western aid to Kyiv, prompting Moscow to support pro-Russian candidates and parties in hopes of disrupting these supply lines.

Conversely, Western nations seek to undermine Moscow's political and cultural dominance in the Black Sea region. They offer support to pro-Western parties and figures, viewing these countries as the first line of defense against any Russian threat to NATO member states. Romania, as a NATO member, exemplifies this strategic importance. It hosts military bases equipped with advanced missile defense systems and plays a crucial logistical role in supporting Ukraine's war against Russia. Romania's contributions include providing military aid to Kyiv (such as Patriot air defense missiles), facilitating the transit of Western aid through its territory, supervising the training of Ukrainian pilots on American F-16 aircraft, and ensuring the safe passage of Ukrainian grain ships and trade through its territorial waters.

Moscow denies interfering in the elections of Georgia and Romania. However, U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller stated in a December 4 press release, "Romania's hard-earned progress anchoring itself in the Transatlantic community cannot be turned back by foreign actors seeking to shift Romania's foreign policy away from its Western alliances." The following day, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused Russia of employing similar tactics to manipulate election results in Moldova, Georgia, and Romania.

On December 17, the European Commission launched an investigation into TikTok officials over allegations of facilitating Russian cyber activities to interfere in the Romanian elections. In a related development, the European Parliament endorsed the Georgian opposition's claims of election fraud. On November 26, it refused to recognize the results of the legislative elections and, two days later, called for a rerun under international supervision. The Parliament also criticized what it described as systematic Russian interference in Georgia, amplifying voters' fears by promoting misleading narratives to distance Tbilisi from Brussels.

In response to these developments, Washington decided on November 30 to suspend its strategic partnership with Tbilisi. Subsequently, on December 19, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions against several Georgian government officials for violating the rights of protesters demonstrating against election fraud.

3- An escalating ideological conflict between political parties over national identity:

The rising influence of far-right forces in electoral contests has made it increasingly difficult to find common ground among political actors to resolve electoral crises. The fundamental contradiction between the values of pro-Moscow elites and parties and those aligned with Brussels, as well as the prevalence of conspiracy theories and mutual distrust, exacerbates this issue. Both sides accuse each other of treason and working to implement foreign agendas, ultimately undermining democracy in the process.

In Georgia, an ideological conflict divides the nation into two distinct camps. One side champions liberal values, arguing that the country's prosperity hinges on meeting all European Union membership requirements. They accuse the ruling Georgian Dream party of steering Tbilisi towards a "Russian autocracy" model. The opposing camp, deeply rooted in conservative Orthodox culture, views the opposition as subservient to "Western dictates" in their pursuit of Brussels, favoring instead a "Russian way" of governance and administration.

The ruling party's insistence on adopting the "Transparency of Foreign Influence" Law in July exemplified this divide, sparking political unrest. The ideological polarization intensified when Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced the suspension of EU accession talks until 2028, responding to the European Parliament's refusal to recognize election results. Subsequently, Georgia has experienced near-daily mass protests, with demonstrators waving EU flags in defiance of the government's decision.

The rise of pro-Russian far-right forces has narrowed the scope for cooperation with traditional parties, deepening ideological polarization and stoking fears about the future. In Romania, the unexpected emergence of Calin Georgescu, a right-wing nationalist outsider, in the presidential elections shocked the political establishment. Georgescu's campaign, built on populist rhetoric, questioned Romania's NATO commitment, opposed further support for Ukraine, advocated reducing cooperation with European collective security institutions, and promoted a conservative value system at odds with Western principles.

Far-right parties in Romania, including the Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, the Save Romania Union, and the Party of Young People, significantly increased their parliamentary representation in the December 1 elections. These parties echo many of Georgescu's ideas and rhetoric, while the coalition of social democratic and liberal parties failed to maintain its parliamentary majority.

In Georgia, the ruling Georgian Dream party's selection of far-right nationalist Kavelashvili as president caught observers off guard. Although the presidency has become largely ceremonial since the 2017 constitutional amendments, with the president now elected by an electoral college rather than the public, the endorsement of Kavelashvili—known for praising Russian President Vladimir Putin and harshly criticizing Western openness—posed a significant challenge to the opposition elite, further exacerbating the ongoing political crisis.

Open Pathways

The political crisis in Georgia appears poised to escalate significantly. Even the most optimistic scenarios for resolution remain fraught with risks, given the conflicting interests and goals of the various political actors involved. Meanwhile, Romania faces its own complex situation, having set a precedent by annulling the results of its presidential elections—a decision with far-reaching implications for the country's political future. Against this backdrop, several potential scenarios and outcomes can be outlined for both cases:

A. The case of Georgia:

Three main possibilities emerge based on current developments:

1- The ruling party taking steps toward a political settlement:

Georgia's Supreme Constitutional Court issued a final and non-appealable ruling on December 3, rejecting President Zourabichvili's lawsuit challenging the parliamentary election results. Despite this, the political path to resolving the crisis remains open. Internal and external pressures on the Georgian Dream party could lead to amendments to the "Transparency of Foreign Influence" Law. On December 20, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Alain Berset, confirmed receiving a promise to this effect from the government during his visit to Tbilisi. These pressures might also prompt a reversal of the decision to postpone EU accession talks, especially as this decision has reinvigorated protests and contradicts both the aspirations of 80% of Georgians who wish to join the EU and Article 78 of the constitution, which obliges the government to remove all obstacles to Georgia's accession.

While such a settlement may not satisfy the entire opposition spectrum—particularly President Zourabichvili, who reiterated her demand for new elections and a meeting with ruling party leader Bidzina Ivanishvili in a December 21 press statement—it would gradually calm the political arena and diminish the opposition's ability to mobilize the masses.

2- The expansion of protests and a repeat of the “Rose Revolution” scenario
:

Protests in Georgia gained momentum after the decision to postpone EU accession talks, spreading beyond the capital and attracting broader segments of the population. Government employees joined the demonstrations, submitting public petitions demanding the government reverse its anti-Brussels policies. Georgian ambassadors to Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and the United States resigned in protest.

Violent handling of protests by security forces risks further mobilization. The opposition hopes to replicate the 2003 "Rose Revolution" that replaced a pro-Russian government with a pro-Western one, or at least force the ruling party to rerun parliamentary elections under European supervision. Such a scenario would likely be preceded by prolonged chaos, with official institutions paralyzed and violent clashes between security forces and protesters escalating.

3- Russian support to quell opposition protests
:

Despite increasing Western pressure on the Georgian government to rerun parliamentary elections—described by Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on December 18 as "blatant Western interference"—Moscow is unlikely to intervene militarily in Georgia, especially given its focus on the war in Ukraine. Nevertheless, Russia could employ alternative strategies to influence the situation.

One potential approach involves provoking military tensions in Georgian territories under Russian control, aiming to intimidate the opposition. Another possibility is providing technical support to Georgian riot police, potentially replicating the Belarusian scenario of 2020. In that instance, excessive force, media smear campaigns, arrests of protest leaders, and the imposition of a fait accompli led to the retreat of pro-Western opposition parties.

Indications of a potential clash between security forces and the opposition in Georgia are becoming apparent. Notably, on December 2, the prime minister characterized the protests as "not peaceful" and accused demonstrators of training to create chaos under the guidance of foreign organizations.

B. The case of Romania

Romania faces several potential consequences and scenarios following the Supreme Constitutional Court's decision to annul the first round of presidential elections:

1- Disruption of political party talks to form a government coalition:

On December 19, the Social Democratic Party (PSD), which holds a relative majority in the Romanian parliament, withdrew from a coalition formed two weeks earlier with centrist parties such as the National Liberal Party (PNL) and ethnic minorities. Given that no coalition can be formed without the PSD, Prime Minister and PSD leader Marcel Ciolacu announced his readiness to support a minority government emerging from talks between right-leaning liberals, the Save Romania Union, and the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania.

The PSD's decision stems from its inability to agree with centrist parties on budgetary matters and its desire to adopt more decisive policies to counterbalance the far-right's influence after it secured over a third of the seats in both houses of parliament. While this move could lead to the formation of a moderate right-wing, pro-Brussels government, it also threatens to prolong the constitutional vacuum in Bucharest. Ciolacu's efforts to form a government from minority parliamentary parties leave the country vulnerable to political instability.

2- Eroding trust in democracy and political and constitutional institutions:

The Romanian authorities' acknowledgment of successful Russian cyberattacks to manipulate the presidential election results undermines their ability to ensure electoral integrity. Such admissions not only sow doubts among citizens about the political system's competence but also expose the country to potential constitutional crises. The Supreme Constitutional Court's decision opens the door for any defeated party to claim it would have won were it not for foreign interference, whether Russian or Western.

Critics argue that Moscow achieved its goal with the court's decision, even if Georgescu did not win the presidency, by undermining citizens' trust in Western democracy. Reformist presidential candidate Elena Lasconi, who came in second in the first round, echoed these concerns, criticizing the court's ruling and warning that it is dragging Romania into chaos.

3- Georgescu’s rising chances of winning the presidency:

Romanian intelligence reports confirmed Russian cyber propaganda and financial support for Georgescu, though the extent of their influence on election results remains unclear. Georgescu employs a "political victimhood" narrative, asserting that "the institutions orchestrated a coup against the will of the people." Voters, seemingly intent on punishing the political elite for failing to address Romania's economic crisis, supported Georgescu and far-right parties in the parliamentary elections. This shift makes his victory in a potential rerun a genuine possibility.

Romania's semi-presidential system complicates matters further. A Georgescu win could lead to increased turmoil, potentially sparking conflicts between the pro-Brussels government coalition and negatively impacting Bucharest's relations with Europe.

Conclusion

Electoral crises in some Black Sea countries recur largely due to the rivalry between Russia and the West for influence in the region, as well as identity-based conflicts over political, economic, and cultural choices aligned with one side or the other. Consequently, uncertainty and ambiguity dominate the current Georgian political landscape, potentially reaching its peak on December 29 when the new president, Kavelashvili, is set to assume office, while the incumbent president, Zourabichvili, has declared her refusal to hand over power. Although Bucharest's future appears less dire than Tbilisi's, political instability in Romania is also likely to escalate, as the Supreme Constitutional Court's historic decision opens the door to challenging the integrity of any future elections.