In a difficult context from all points of view – economic, social, political and geopolitical – it would have been expected that the stakes of the Bucharest mayoral elections would be treated in line with the challenges by the more reformist and clearly pro-Western wing of the political spectrum.
The first symptom that this approach has been ignored, and reduced to the classic games of personal and party political interests is the fact that three candidates who share about the same slice of the electorate are fighting against each other.
Just a few days before the elections, when on the other side (the Social Democrats and the pro-Russian sovereignists) the related forces began to limit their risk of fragmentation of the vote, through some tactical withdrawals, on the reformist-Western corridor the internal struggles are only intensifying.
Ana Ciceală (SENS) has categorically announced that she will not withdraw. Ciprian Ciucu (PNL) has repeatedly demanded the withdrawal of Cătălin Drulă (USR), and Cătălin Drulă counterattacks, benefiting from the support of President Nicușor Dan, which is difficult to deny.
But they all ignore the essence: in this way, the risk of Bucharest plunging under at least four years of PSD administration becomes greater by the day than the chances of Drulă or Ciucu winning the race. And the risk that the pro-Russians will register a spectacular victory at the polls, through Anca Alexandrescu, has also become intolerably high.
For the electorate of Ciucu, Drulă and Nicușor Dan, it will be extremely difficult to digest an eventual success of PSD-Grindeanu in Bucharest, through Daniel Băluță.
But it would be truly catastrophic for the evolution of the entire country if the first place was obtained by Anca Alexandrescu. As well, it will also be very problematic to rank second or third (because that would mean overtaking either the USR or the PNL candidate, and for AUR and Alexandrescu this would be a marketing success they could exploit).
For AUR (the party that officially supports it) and for the rest of the pro-Russian political breath in this wake, such a victory would be an invaluable springboard. In general, such “insurgent” formations and movements have a special talent for converting successes of this type into levers that help them evaluate and turn everything upside down.
From this point of view, those who, out of unconsciousness or, on the contrary, perfectly aware of the risk, create such conditions of possibility are nothing more than authentic political arsonists. As things stand so far, it is clear that on the reformist-western corridor there are enough who have lit a match.
I have said it on other occasions, the only mature and appropriate decision at this moment is for USR and PNL to agree on the remaining of a single candidate in the race.
Personally, I argued why this candidate should be Ciprian Ciucu. But for the general good, an eventual last-minute agreement between the parties can also quietly tilt towards Ciucu’s withdrawal and the support of Cătălin Drulă.
It is essential that one of the two withdraws and supports the other without hesitation.
The dissensions that arose during the campaign between Cătălin Drulă and Ciprian Ciucu are not (yet) likely to inhibit such a step. The Bucharest electorate of the two candidates is mature enough to understand what is at stake. However, it is true that, with each passing day, the dissensions between them tend to escalate.
For example, from the perspective of the democratic spirit and of a better clarification of the voters regarding the qualities and training of the candidates, Cătălin Drulă was right to accuse the fact that Daniel Băluță and Ciprian Ciucu refused any debate with him.
But neither Băluță nor Ciucu are the first candidates in Romania’s electoral history to do so.
Moreover, not far from the horizon of the 2024 electoral year, one of those who refused the debate with a certain counter-candidate was the current head of state himself, when he was running for re-election as general mayor.
At that time, Nicușor Dan had brought the liberal Sebastian Burduja to the brink of despair. At that time, Nicușor Dan’s argument was a tactical one: during the debates “things are said”, Nicușor Dan explained, and after the elections he wanted to have “the support of the PNL”.
Personally, I understood his reasoning perfectly, which, although he limped in principle, was nevertheless well adapted to the context and to Dan’s long-term goals.
At the same time, the ease with which the president of the country now associates his image and prestige of the presidential office with one of the candidates for the local elections in the Capital, in this case Cătălin Drulă, tends (at least) to become problematic.
Of all the elements that built this perception, a campaign video, made in Cotroceni presidential Palace itself, is probably the most striking.
And it’s striking in many ways.
- By the fact that the footage itself is professionally made enough to leave the impression that everyone involved in the filmed discussion was aware of what the meaning and destination of the images would be.
- By the fact that it was distributed by an advisor to the president, Vlad Voiculescu – no matter how honorary he is, he is still an advisor to the president.
- By the fact that the target of the reproaches made in that dialogue was neither Băluță, nor Alexandrescu, but Ciucu – this is important to note from the perspective of the general impression left by the Western reformists, that they fight among themselves, and the others might win.
Despite the justifications he brought later, Nicușor Dan should be aware of many things that seem to implausibly escape him.
One would be that words can hardly defeat the image created.
The second would be that he became president thanks to a moment of deep crisis – not only a political crisis, but also a crisis of confidence of citizens in politics and in politicians. In this context, I don’t think that those who voted for him in May wanted him in Cotroceni necessarily to help, from his new position, a liberal or a USR-ist, but rather to consolidate the reformist and pro-Western camp, thereby diminishing the extremist and pro-Russian tsunami. And they also voted for him to be a lucid and efficient arbiter, to increase people’s trust in politics and politicians.
The third would be that, in the spirit of the above, Nicușor Dan’s eventual involvement in this campaign would have been a constructive one for the country’s interests if he had dealt with the issue on its own merits: discouraging USR and PNL from betting on separate candidates, especially after the Georgescu shock, especially in a single-round election.
The president still has a few dozen hours to return to the role and promises he has assumed. USR and PNL do not have more time to repair the potentially catastrophic mistakes they made in this campaign.
The clock is ticking to their detriment, but especially to the detriment of a country that is adrift.
