Alleged Illegitimacy of Klaus Iohannis: A Crisis in Romanian Politics

In Romania, the political landscape has become increasingly contentious as President Klaus Iohannis extends his mandate beyond the constitutional end date of December 21, 2024. This decision has sparked widespread criticism and allegations of illegitimacy, mainly because Iohannis has chosen a new prime minister during this extended period.

Is this decision legitimate? If the president is illegitimate and exercise his power abusively, how can his decisions, taken during this period, be legitimate?

Critics came not only from the so-called “extremist” parties, like AUR, SOS or POT, all forming the Opposition, but also from the anti-corruption party USR (Save Romania Union), whose president, Elena Lasconi, qualified for the second round of the presidential elections, now cancelled. She mentioned she told Klaus Iohannis he is not supposed to act like Romania’s President.

As of December 23, Marcel Ciolacu, the former Socialist prime minister, is once more designated to form the Government. Yet, the designation is illegitimate if the current occupant of the Romania Presidential chair is proved illegitimate.

Background of the Political Crisis, Allegations of Illegitimacy

The backdrop to this political crisis is rooted in the annulment of the recent presidential elections by Romania’s Constitutional Court, which cited foreign interference and electoral misconduct. This unprecedented move left Iohannis in a precarious position as his second term was set to conclude. However, he argued that constitutional provisions allowed him to remain in office until a new president was elected, a claim many legal experts and political analysts contest.

Critics have labelled Iohannis an “illegitimate president,” asserting that his actions undermine democratic processes and set a dangerous precedent for future governance. By designating Marcel Ciolacu as Prime Minister amidst these allegations, Iohannis has further fueled concerns about the integrity of Romania’s political system.

Ciolacu, leader of the Social Democratic Party (PSD), is now tasked with forming a government under the shadow of an administration many view as lacking legitimate authority.

What Does Romanian Constitution Say about Presidential Vacancy?

The Romanian Constitution outlines specific provisions regarding the presidential term and its extension. Here are the key points relevant to the current situation involving President Klaus Iohannis:

Term Duration: According to Article 83 of the Constitution, the President of Romania serves a term of five years, which begins when they take the oath of office. The Constitution states that the President shall continue in office until a newly elected President takes the oath.

Conditions for Extension: The Constitution allows for the extension of the presidential term only under specific circumstances. Article 83, paragraph 3, specifies that the mandate can be extended by organic law in cases of war or catastrophe. This provision is designed to ensure continuity in leadership during emergencies.

Constitutional Court’s Interpretation: Recently, the Constitutional Court ruled that Iohannis’s term would be extended until a new President is elected and takes the oath. This ruling is controversial because it interprets Article 83(2) as applicable in this context, despite the lack of explicit provision for extending a term due to electoral annulment. Critics argue that this interpretation stretches the intended meaning of “normal circumstances” and raises questions about its legitimacy.

Interim Presidency: If the presidential position becomes vacant, Article 88 outlines that an interim president will be appointed in a specific order: first, by the President of the Senate, then by the President of the Chamber of Deputies. This provision underscores that there are established protocols for handling vacancies in presidential office.

Implications for Democracy

The ramifications of Iohannis’s decision extend beyond mere political manoeuvring; they threaten to destabilize Romania’s democratic institutions and erode public trust. Opposition parties have called for greater accountability and transparency in governance, arguing that extending presidential terms without clear justification undermines the principles of democracy.

Many believe such actions could increase public discontent and empower extremist factions in future elections. Not only that, but no certain date for future elections has been forwarded, and this constitutes another example of power abuse in public’s eyes.

There is a growing consensus among legal experts that Romania needs more transparent regulations regarding what constitutes a “catastrophe” or other justifiable reasons for extending presidential terms. The ambiguity surrounding these provisions allows for varied interpretations that could be exploited by sitting presidents, potentially undermining democratic norms.

The situation raises critical questions about the balance of power within the government and the need for robust mechanisms to safeguard democratic integrity against potential abuses. The upcoming months will be pivotal in determining whether Romania can restore confidence in its leadership and electoral processes or if it will continue down a path marked by division and discontent.

The future of Romanian democracy hangs in the balance as citizens watch closely how their leaders navigate this unprecedented crisis.