As we go to press, the Social Democratic Party (PSD) announced their withdrawal from the discussions to form a new government coalition in Romania, citing the lack of willingness of the neoliberal Save Romania Union (USR) to cooperate. The PSD went on to state they would however support the formation of a right wing government.
Some sources cite that in truth the PSD refused “to have their name linked” with strong austerity measures the National Liberal Party (PNL) wanted to push in a coalition. The so-called ”little train ordinance”, would represent an initiative to freeze pensions, wages for teachers, nurses and other workers in state-owned facilities, and a squeeze on food stamps and payment for extra hours.
If the sources are true, the PSD avoided publicly taking an anti-austerity stance, instead choosing to let other parties, PNL, USR and RMDSZ, form a government that would push these policies, while PSD remained in opposition.
In other words, the PSD are willing to trade the livelihoods of workers in order to get popularity as being the ”lesser evil” in comparison with the populist right wing. That reflects the point made below that the PSD are pretending to be pro-welfare out of fear of the working class, while being more than ready to condemn them to poverty, at any given time, and not seriously resisting the formation of a neo-liberal, austerity coalition, and allowing such a coalition to be formed.
The text below will analyse the first two weeks after the parliamentary elections where the PSD’s participation in the coalition was much more likely. Whether the PSD end up joining the coalition or not, the fact that the PSD was willing to form a coalition with the neoliberals in the first place, and now vow to vote in a government that will push for austerity, while distancing themselves from such policies only for political self preservation, shows that class collaboration will always be in the detriment of the working class.
Elections cancelled
On 6 December while many people were celebrating Saint Nicolas day, the Romanian state, specifically the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR), decided to cancel the second round of elections alleging “Russian interference”. Just a day before, the Foreign Affairs Ministry notified neighbouring countries that they would do “anything necessary to defend democracy and European values”.
An international audience might think that Russia projecting power in “it’s backyard” is nothing new, like in the case of post-soviet Ukraine up until the war. This impression is supported by the images of young students and NGO-s in university cities protesting with EU flags in their hands and chanting anti-Russian, pro-western slogans, trying their best to pretend they are part of Euromaidan or the Georgia protests they have heard so much about from the liberal media. However, this impression couldn’t be further from the truth.
The inter imperialist war being fought out in Ukraine has shaped the Romanian elections massively, just not in the way Romanian and western media has reported on it.
Let’s begin from the start. The Romanian political liberal establishment, not unlike most of those in the global north and the broader world, is extremely rotten and an increasing number of workers, especially young, are aware of that. Those that don’t give up on electoralism completely, are unfortunately, in the absence of a worker’s socialist alternative, being sold the illusion of the fake saviours of “soveigniy”/right wing populism, etc.
In the period before the elections, however, the main factors that were to determine the vote were the fear of the pro-austerity, neoliberal and western capital-backed USR (Union for the Salvation of Romanians); and the fury with the inactivity of the traditional bourgeoise party, PSD (social-democrats), despite its promises not to cut welfare, and even (maybe) expand it a bit. The so-called “alternative”, the right wing populist AUR (Alliance for the Unification of Romanians), has seen a decline of their dedicated supporters. The workers who would have voted for them as a protest vote now even see them as more ingrained in “the system”.
This situation shows a political vacuum, on the basis of disgust with the traditional capitalist parties, and a generalised feeling that the last 35 years (since the fall of Ceaușescu’s regime) were a disaster and lead to massive poverty. For this reason, for many such workers, someone who is seen as an outsider, that wants to fight the establishment, who is able to point out the problems (even if not offering working class solutions), would be favoured, if not for his politics, then as a protest vote.
That lead to the ginormous surprise in the election night, when Călin Georgescu, who run on an independent platform, a figure who was excluded from AUR on the basis of his sympathies for the Romanian fascists of old (the ‘legionnaires’), won the first round of the presidential elections, with 23% of the votes. The second place was a very close race between Marcel Ciolacu of PSD and Elena Lasconi of USR, with the latter narrowly winning the vote because of the diaspora vote. For many young workers, the neoliberal austerity vote for Lasconi was, not unlike Argentina, a protest vote. Even if the main point of discontent with the PSD was never delivering on their promises of progressive taxation, higher wages, etc., and even if USR wanted to implement the exact opposite, punishing the social-democrats was seen by some voters as more important.
Quickly after, Ciolacu announced he would not ask for a recounting of the votes, that he accepted the results, and did not desire the presidency anymore. For many of the PSD voters, this was seen as a betrayal; having voted for Ciolacu despite class bias pressures from the anti-PSD liberal media, only for him to throw in the towel.
In the following week’s parliamentary elections, things looked completely different however. The PSD won, with 23% of votes, followed by AUR, with 18%, while USR got a mere 10%. The unusually “huge” presence at the ballot boxes (52%), was fuelled by the fear mongering induced by liberal media regarding Georgescu, which in turn validated the anti-”system” image of the “sovereigntist” forces (AUR, Georgescu, SOS Romania, POT, etc.), divided and sectarian as they are. This led to a very divided parliament, where forming a majority will be extremely hard.
Romania is soon going to face an impending budgetary crisis due to disastrous neoliberal policies, which funnelled money to European capital (Pfizer, especially), while blaming social spending and the “too high” wages of state employees, including teachers and nurses, for the crisis itself . The reality of course is that education and healthcare wages are low and not enough to survive on. This is especially the case for young workers in these sectors, leading to strikes in the last two years.
In the face of these social forces, the strategy of the PSD was to tax the petty bourgeoisie, and to try to avoid the anger of the working class, while the USR would have cut wages and decreased the taxes to the rich further.
For this reason, the PSD attempts to form a coalition government faced problems in the following week. At the date of writing, the social-democrats are discussing the exclusion of Victor Ponta and other PSD voices opposed to joining the coalition, who would rather see PSD in opposition. During the PSD party meeting on 9 December, they decided to join a coalition only if Ciolacu gets to be the prime minister, as well as a list of five demands. Those demands include, “capping gas, energy and basic food prices, economic patriotism – continuing to support the Romanian private sector, maintaining the threshold for small and medium-sized enterprises”.
Through these policies, they will try to present themselves as a balancing force between austerity and the status-quo, the exact same position they occupied before in Romanian politics. This position, as well as their willingness to give up so easily on their promises of higher wages, is the main point of discontent many workers have with the PSD and is precisely what helped lead to the rise of the populist right.
Being the traditional representatives of national capital, the PSD are continuing to represent the ‘peacemakers’ within the ruling class, showing themselves willing to negotiate on their behalf. In the face of some of the Romanian capitalists moving away from supporting the PSD and the National Liberal Party, and towards the aforementioned populist right, the PSD are proposing ‘class unity’ among the Romanian and European foreign bourgeoisie for geopolitical reasons, while trampling over their already weak concessions to the workers. But this strategy might fail.
At the same time, some voices in the USR would prefer to be a “pro-European opposition party”, being somewhat aware of the impact a PSD-led government would have on the Romanian working class already sick with the status-quo. If the USR were to be that party in opposition it may give rise to illusions among the petty bourgeoisie, as well as among some workers, in the USR as an alternative, which in the long run might allow them to enter a government.
The proposed coalition could mean every proposed policy would be subject to constant inner debate in an attempt to block the populist right from the decision making process, and not much government policy may become legislation. With the traditional bourgeois parties in a coalition, the narrative of the “sovereignists” will be validated further. The move is already unpopular among the working class PSD voters, and the voters of the other parties alike, while people who voted for the populist right feel that “the system” has banded together out of fear of the parties and candidates they voted for. This will only strengthen the illusions in such parties, knowing that their voters wanted precisely to make the traditional parties “afraid”.
A “National Security” government?
It was widely unrealistic to think that the USR and PSD could easily form a coalition government. Since after the cancelling of the elections, these hallucinations are beginning to recede. Some rounds of negotiations have already taken place, and it seems less likely that USR will be in the coalition.
The USR have unsurprisingly criticised the unwillingness of the other parties to increase the tax cuts for the rich at this stage. In the proposed governing programme the other three parties have put forward, apart from the policies listed above (especially cuts in the upper bureaucracy of the state apparatus), they promise a progressive taxation of “big wealth”. This is wholly insufficient for the vast majority of the working class, but for USR it is a capital sin.
The USR, citing the fact that the other parties wanted tax rises, most likely of the petty bourgeoisie if the status-quo of the last two years is to stay, skipped a round of negotiations on who gets which ministry. As a response, the PNL and PSD publicly reminded the neoliberals that they have the required votes without them, 52% of the Parliament, when the mandatory national minorities representatives are counted.
What followed was a set of demands by USR, especially regarding the budget for next year. As a response from the Liberal’s ultimatum, the other parties publicly stated that they see the action as an excuse for USR to save face while they withdraw from the coalition.
Another important development was the announcement of Nicușor Dan, the mayor of Bucharest, that he will run for presidency as an independent, who changed his rhetoric somewhat in the last election, to vague messages of unity and class collaboration. Dan was a founder of the USR, and made a profile for himself in the western-backed NGO anti-corruption scene. Now, in the second term of his mayorship, he wants to look like a “warrior” against the “illegal urbanisation” that is destroying natural parks in Bucharest. He is not part of USR anymore, a party that does not share his supposed ‘green’ outlook.
Nicușor Dan’s image as a “grassroots” figure will help him to be the chosen pro-European imperialism candidate, if need be . As of yet, Lasconi has not gotten out of the race and the PNL, the closest big party to USR, announced they would prefer Nicușor Dan over her.
However, even if Nicușor Dan’s class collaborationism might attract more people, it’s possible that after the election he would go closer to the capitalist class warriorism of his USR past. In a recent interview, when asked if this year the Bucharest working class would have to put up with the gruelling cold they had had in recent winters, all Nicușor Dan could say was “I hope not”.
Some mass media outlets described this as a coalition to defend “the nation from Russian interests”, or more simply said a “pro-European” coalition. While for most people in and outside Romania there is little to no contradiction between these two labels, in reality the latter is extremely accurate, while the former is the product of anti-Russian sentiments, a harmful feature in Romanian society introduced by Ceaușescu, the most anti-Kremlin leader of the former Eastern Bloc.
Who represents who?
A closer look at the political programme and discourse of Călin Georgescu reveals his real sympathies. A self proclaimed “ultra-pro-Trumpist”, he is parroting the next American president in his “America First” discourse. However, being a country rather imperialised than in a position to impose power, “Romania First” would look completely different.
If in the case of the USA, the democrat-republican divide reveals two different positions within the \American ruling class. In the Romanian case, one side represents the interests of European foreign capital (and some Romanian capital, as well), while the far-right represents the interests of exclusively the Romanian-based capitalists sections of the petit, and not-so-petty bourgeois.
Between the articles which try to scaremonger about Russia, the mainstream media has also revealed some interviews where Georgescu puts forward his actual policies. Higher tarrifs for foreign capital, and tax cuts for Romanian owned capital is at the core of his economic policy. He criticises the privatisation of land resources, rightfully calling every privatisation after 1989 a “theft”. For this reason, the liberal parties, media and NGO’s are calling him a “communist”, referring back to his admiration of Putin and lack of hatred towards Russians. However, it’s pretty easy to infer from his speech that he would want said resources to be privatised to exclusively national companies, in other words for the thieves to be Romanian. This is however not unique to him, but a feature in all the various and divided strands of Romanian “sovereigntism”.
Regarding his geo-political stance, Georgescu declares himself pro-western, even if his definition of what that means is somewhat different from the traditional parties. Even if Georgescu wants to secure Russian neutrality, not unlike his “mentor” in Mar-a-Lago, he is extremely pro-Israel and had promised to invite Netanyahu to Bucharest to discuss strategy as soon as he becomes president.
A Georgescu presidency wouldn’t have taken Romania into the Russian sphere of influence, but it would have created divisions between the foreign European and national capital. The situation could be compared to Orbán’s Hungary, which Georgescu praises as well. Even if he called Putin “a good leader”, Georgescu has also declared that he isn’t “one of his fans”.
A political force that would seek to push out the European capital away from Romania is something extremely opposed to the line that Romanian politicians followed for the last 35 years. That is precisely why Georgescu was opposed with all the might of the Romanian state. The same state and the CCR (court) declared not long ago that even mildly rising taxes for foreign companies, a PSD proposal born out of fear of more workers’ strikes, would be unconstitutional.
As Marxists, we understand that a fight between national capital and European capital is not the fight of the working class. But it is obviously both deeply concerning and telling that the state is so intertwined with foreign capital (or any capital for that matter), that they would use any means against the status-quo, trampling even over the liberal so-called “democratic” process.
When a genuine anti-war, pro-working class alternative is to arise from the working class struggle, the same tools would be used to try to crush it in the same way they are trying to do now with Georgescu.
While the votes were still counted, the pro-austerity USR tried its best to rally their supporters abroad, especially in the USA, where they were still voting, in order to narrowly win against Ciolacu.
Two weeks later, the CCR cancelled the same vote on the basis that Georgescu’s campaign continued up until two days before the elections, thereby breaching electioneering rules.
This shows a clear bias by the CCR, and for many workers was felt as a betrayal of democracy. The anti-Georgescu vote, both supporting Lasconi or just reluctantly voting her as “the lesser evil”, has shown mixed reactions to the news of Georgescu’s exclusion.
Lasconi herself spoke out against the CCR decision, which had potential to raise her popularity further. It had potential if not for the letter she sent to Donald Trump in response to the (quite foreseeable) reactions some people close to Trump had upon finding out someone declaring himself to be part of the same political current as Trump was attacked by the liberal media and the traditional liberal establishment. In the letter, Lasconi makes it clear that she disagrees with the “neo-Marxist” CCR, and, like Donald Trump, she is a “leader of the people”.
This doesn’t match well with the image projected upon Lasconi before the elections by the liberal NGO’s, as a “Romanian Kamala Harris”, based on the fact that she is a woman with a bisexual daughter. This image was itself extremely fragile, as Lasconi said repeatedly she is a devout person who regards marriage as only between a man and a woman (even during the presidential campaign), while giving extremely mild recognition of people’s right to “do what they want in their bedrooms”. Regarding abortions, Lasconi parrots the position that it “should be available, but not encouraged”, without supporting proper resources for women and families to make real choices
However, more importantly, a Lasconi presidency would be horrific for women and queer people regardless of what she thinks, as no one would be able to afford abortions in her privatised for-profit hospitals, and which would easily deny access to queer patients.
The “break” the liberal establishment carved at the expense of the vote will be probably used to find a more “permanent” solution to the right wing populists. In the pursuit of this however, they will just throw hay on the fire, further strengthening the illusions in Georgescu, AUR, etc. have injected into sections of the working class, presenting a conspiracy-written Romanian-based capitalism as an alternative to the current European-based liberal one. In the short-term however, the exclusion of Georgescu, George Simion, Diana Șoșoacă or other right wing populists, would most likely lead to disappointment among their voter base, rather than the mass protests these figures would hope for.
Since the pandemic, even if these forces ”normalised” their relations with the establishment and got more votes from less politically involved parts of the working class, they have lost a lot of their loyal forces. When Șoșoacă Diana, another candidate, was banned from running by the CCR earlier in the election period, a mere 50 people showed up to protest against the decision.
What comes next?
To the international reader, it might look like at the moment that every single one of the forces listed above is in a sort of crisis. That is completely right. The reason why Călin Georgescu managed to win the first round was not because of the so-called ”enemy in the East”, but because of the deep divisions between the ruling class in the age of crisis of capitalism we live in.
As a perceived independent force by many voters, Georgescu became the last minute choice for a plurality of the people that voted for him. It is completely possible for his popularity to continue to rise until the elections, but we wouldn’t exclude the possibility for his popularity to fall on account of becoming “old news” by then. Such a “meteor candidate”, as he was called in the Romanian liberal media, would be a phenomenon hard to replicate two times in a row.
However, taking into account the decline of the liberal parties, right wing populism will probably see in the next few years an overall rise. Despite their own shortcomings, the chances of right wing populist parties to get into power are as great as the decline of the traditional parties of rule.
The main feature of the Romanian “sovereigntist” trend, as opposed to most countries, is their level of fragmentation. With more than three parties trying to claim this mantle, while calling the others, fake “men of the system”, it’s hard to imagine a right wing populist government that wouldn’t collapse from within. We know from recent history that these figures don’t remain popular in the eyes of the working class for long after their ascension to power.
This paints a very clear picture; the bourgeoisie is divided.
What is to be done?
What is however on the rise as a political force is the working class movement. Mighty strikes in the education sector in 2023, which although defeated by the traitors in the union bureaucracy, managed to scare the establishment and forced the PSD-PNL coalition to spare us the costs of their budgetary crisis. Monthly we see new sectors going into strike action for the first time. Such is the case with the archivists, striking last month for the first time in the history of the National Archive.
Strikes have shown that they can force politicians to take favourable attitudes towards us. The moment they are no longer able to defeat workers through their collaborators in the trade union leadership, politicians will use any other means at their disposal. As we see more strikes that can be legally attacked, that anti-strike and anti-union laws can be introduced overnight, out of the stroke of a pen, the need to bring the voices of working people not just onto the streets on picket lines, but into parliament will become clearer.
That is why a workers’ party is needed, seeking to win elections to advance the interests of workers and young people. Unlike traditional parties, which defend the interests of the capitalist class, a workers’ party aims to organize the proletariat into a united, politically independent political force that breaks out of the logic of the capitalist system. Such a force, if it took on this role, would be capable of replacing the current economic system with one that works for the needs of all, not profit.
Romania, the whole Balkans and globally, the problem is not only the lack of a “real left” party, but, above all, the absence of mass workers’ parties with bold socialist policies that act mainly outside parliamentary structures and do not see the electoral struggle as the only objective of politics. A party that focuses only on winning seats in parliament risks becoming a prisoner of bourgeois institutional logic and compromising in the losses of the working class.
This wider sense of distrust in the system and the desire to change the current political space demonstrates the urgent need to build an independent and democratic political organization of the working class. The working class are not only in the majority, but make the world economy and society run and are the only social force that can therefore make it work differently. To form such a party we need the energy that most enthusiastic voters and volunteers put into the elections, but all year round and for a socialist goal.
In the presidential TV debate on November 18th, the first question presented a “doomsday” scenario. It depicted a wave of strikes amid the budget crisis, asking the candidates to choose between taxes for smaller and larger capitalists, or mass layoffs. Aside from the fact that most avoided the question, instead mentioning suggestively that taxes can’t be raised, this shows an interesting point. Strikes as a political response to crises created by capitalism are every politician’s nightmare.
Whoever wins the next round of elections, let’s make sure we make their nightmares a reality!
