I earlier wrote that the West’s elites were too tentative in their approach to lawfare, using Trump (where I’m right) and Georgescu as examples. With Goergescu they had initially just annulled an election, but let him run again.
Seems I was wrong about Georgescu. Using charges of Russian influence after “finding” weapons and cash and whatnot in his network. I’m—skeptical, at best, this looks like a stitch up to me, but I can’t rule out that the evidence isn’t planted.
So Romania has now banned Georgescu from running at all.
But here’s the thing, take a look at the polling:
The runaway leader. By far. So they’ve banned the most popular choice from running.
It’s hard to say this isn’t anti-democratic. If I were Romanian I’d feel fully justified in starting or joining a revolution in response and as a foreigner, I rather hope that’s what happens, because if it doesn’t, then this sort of election interference will spread in the West. “Vote for anyone you want, as long as the candidate is someone current incumbent can stand.” It’s not hard to imagine this being used against the left as well as the right: a populist left-winger like Corbyn, for example. (Remember there were threats that if Corbyn won the military would launch a coup.) Melenchon’s left wing might face the same fate if it it wins the Presidential election.
So far I haven’t seen the EU condemn this, and I rather assume it’s done with Brussel’s approval. A bad omen for change in Europe. And if change can’t be peaceful, at some point it will be violent.
The neoliberals have ruled for too long, and are too full of themselves to believe that anyone else even has a right to rule. The old post-war order disagreed with Thatcher and Reagan and their heirs, and had ruled for about the same amount of time, but they allowed the transfer of power to a new ideology.
Democracy requires this: if you can’t choose something radically different at the ballot box, then you don’t really have elections.