After a rollercoaster campaign marked by allegations of foreign interference and the striking ban of a leading ultranationalist candidate, Romania’s electorate delivered a decisive verdict on Sunday. In a high-stakes runoff that would determine the country’s course within the EU and NATO, the centrist independent candidate Nicușor Dan prevailed over the hard-right firebrand George Simion. Exit polls showed the 55-year-old Bucharest mayor winning roughly 55% of the vote to Simion’s 45%. Simion, who styled himself after Donald Trump, immediately cried foul on social media, insisting the result was a ‘victory of the Romanian people’ and that he had, in his words, been “humiliated” by establishment forces. But in the streets of Bucharest, Dan’s supporters, united in their joy, erupted in celebration, chanting his name in jubilation as they awaited official confirmation of the count. Analysts and diplomats noted that this outcome will reassure partners in Brussels and Washington after weeks of turmoil. As the Politico news agency put it, Dan’s win “will calm fears” that Romania would swing to the right and abandon its pro-European, NATO-aligned stance.
Nicușor Dan, Bucharest’s independent mayor and a former mathematics academic, ran this campaign as the embodiment of reform and pro-Western stability. He first rose to national prominence by fighting Bucharest’s “real estate mafia” as an activist and by founding the Save Romania Union (USR) party in 2015. After leaving USR in 2017 over a social policy disagreement, Dan ran successfully for mayor in 2020 and governed as a technocratic figure focused on infrastructure and transparency. He pledged an aggressive anti-corruption agenda in this presidential bid and repeatedly emphasized Romania’s commitment to its Western alliances. He told reporters that supporting Ukraine’s defense “is essential for the security of Romania and Moldova,” adding that everything Romania has done so far to assist Kyiv “was correct and must continue.” On election night, Dan thanked supporters for choosing “a community that wants a profound change in Romania…that wants functioning state institutions and a reduction of corruption.” His vision resonated with many urban and middle-class voters who feared that Simion’s agenda could isolate Romania from the EU and destabilize its future.
This runoff was called only after a significant political crisis earlier in the year. In November, far-right candidate Călin Georgescu had shocked observers by winning the first round of the presidential vote. But his victory was annulled when Romania’s top court ruled the campaign had involved illegal funding and covert Russian backing via social media. Georgescu was promptly barred from running again, a decision that polarized the country. His disqualification, sanctioned by the electoral authority because he had “violated the very obligation to defend democracy,” deeply angered his supporters. Into this void stepped George Simion, the 38-year-old leader of the AUR party and a self-described protégé of Georgescu. Simion quickly consolidated the far-right vote, campaigning on themes of nationalism and populist grievance. He advocated uniting Romania with neighboring Moldova, railed against immigrants, and vowed to roll back what he called the abuses of the political class. Notably, Simion openly criticized Romania’s aid to Ukraine, calling the donation of Patriot missiles “absurd,” and insisted on a foreign policy of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine war. He decried EU “bureaucrats”. He promised to give Romanians “sovereign” economic policies. However, many voters were put off by his rhetoric: he had even been banned from entering Ukraine and Moldova for his “systematic anti-Ukrainian activities,” analysts described him as a Eurosceptic who was “very critical of Brussels.”
The candidates’ positions on the European Union and the Ukraine war drew a stark line between them. Dan ran explicitly as a pro-European, pro-NATO leader. He argued that Romania’s security depends on Ukraine’s success and pledged to maintain sanctions on Russia and support to Kyiv. In interviews he stressed that Romania “must continue” its military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, framing this as a duty for an EU border state under threat. Simion, by contrast, campaigned on retrenching from the conflict and focusing inward. He said Romania should remain neutral, “peace is most important to me,” and criticized the burden of “participating in the war effort” for three years. Dan embraced European integration. In language that resonated with many voters, Dan promised to fight corruption and to “defend our European normalcy.” Simion, while saying he would nominally keep Romania in the EU, denounced Brussels as overreaching and branded his movement as taking on a “populist message” for Romanians uncomfortable with some EU policies. In short, voters saw Dan as championing stability and a closer alliance with Romania’s Western partners, and Simion as promising a nationalist turn that risked alienating those partners.
In the end, Dan’s coalition-building and turnout strategy won the day. He trailed Simion in early polls after the first round, but an energized pro-EU turnout made the difference. Exit numbers show turnout surged to about 65% in the runoff, up from roughly 53% in the first round. City centers, university towns, and the Romanian diaspora rallied for Dan in large numbers. Remarkably, Dan even carried voters in Moldova, a neighborhood with many ethnic Romanians, by a 53% to 12% margin, underscoring that Simion’s ultra-nationalist message failed to attract that community. Analysts credit Dan’s success to a concentrated ground effort by centrist parties and civil-society groups to get pro-EU citizens to the polls. Dan’s campaign emphasized pragmatic economic and social fixes, for example, improving healthcare and education. In contrast, Simion’s marquee promise of building a million cheap apartments was later admitted to be mere “political marketing.” As a result, many voters ultimately chose Dan as the safer, more moderate choice. Exit polls on Sunday showed Dan winning broad swaths of urban and educated constituencies that mainly had stayed home in November, giving him a clear majority.
Simion’s camp reacted to the result with anger and conspiracy. He falsely declared himself the winner and claimed massive fraud, echoing the language of US Trumpists he admires. His supporters chanted slogans about a “stolen” election and demanded recounts. Yet by most accounts, the voting process itself ran smoothly this time, and there is little institutional push to void the outcome as happened last winter. The head of the electoral bureau even certified that “all democratic standards were met” in this vote. Security analysts had warned that the most likely flashpoint would have been any attempt to cancel the election result again, which could have led to street clashes, but noted that in the absence of such intervention, Romania was poised to see only limited unrest. In practice, the country remained tense but calm. Pro-European demonstrators who had rallied in the capital on May 9, demanding Dan’s victory, did so peacefully. Simion’s rallies, though loudly patriotic, showed no signs of spiraling out of control. Still, experts caution that Romania is deeply polarized right now. One academic notes the election has split society in two – half “on the offensive” backing Simion’s call for radical change, and half “on the defensive” trying to preserve Romania’s EU path. Sporadic protests may continue, and some fringe groups could test the limits of civil order. But there is no evidence yet of widespread violence, and no foreign backers of the far right have stepped in this time to engineer disruptions as was feared after Georgescu’s surprise win.
With the uncertainty behind them, Romanians can look ahead to the long game. A Dan presidency will almost certainly mean Romania stays firmly in the European mainstream. European capitals and NATO allies can breathe easier knowing the new president is, by his own words, committed to keeping Romania “with our allies, in NATO and the European Union.” In practical terms, Dan’s team must now form a government by cobbling together the centrist and center-right parties that survived this election. He has signaled a readiness to implement tough economic reforms; one Politico report highlights that Dan will have to name a pro-European prime minister to tackle Romania’s roughly 9% budget deficit. That means hard choices ahead on spending and anti-corruption measures. These choices, he argued, would benefit the average Romanian in the long run. For society, however, the wounds of this contest will take time to heal. Large protests had already demanded that the new leadership maintain a “pro-European” course; Dan’s challenge will be to meet those expectations while addressing the very real grievances that drove his opponents to nearly half the electorate. If Dan successfully delivers on government transparency, economic stability, and effective management, he may build enough trust to bridge the divide. If not, the strong showing of nationalist sentiment at the ballot box suggests that dissatisfaction could resurface in future elections.
In sum, this election represented a crossroads for Romania. By choosing Nicușor Dan, a pro-Western reformer, voters have steered the country, at least for now, along its existing international course. The result defused what many feared would be one of the European Union’s most dangerous election upsets. In the future, Dan’s presidency will be judged on whether it can translate the rhetoric of change into tangible progress, and on whether it can mend the rift revealed by this fierce campaign. The stakes are high: Romania’s stability and role on the continent now depend on whether its new leaders can unite a polarized nation and defend the values Dan promised to uphold.
Add comment
Comments