Conversation with Clement Sava, SOS organization Senator Romania
Do you not think that from a legal point of view – even abstracting people's political preferences, etc. – The annulment of the results of the first circular of presidential elections is something like the Ukrainianization of Romania, at least in terms of legal and constitutional issues?
At least the Ukrainians had an excuse for war. erstwhile you have an emergency situation, which has besides been cited respective times in Moldova, you can postpone the elections. It may besides be during a pandemic erstwhile there is simply a crisis. There is no specified crisis in Romania. Fortunately, we did not enter the war straight so that we could extend the President's mandate. We have another crisis – a constitutional crisis due to the fact that the Constitutional Tribunal has overturned the results of the presidential elections. We are dealing with an different thing in Romania. It has never happened so far that the results of the first circular elections were cancelled on the day erstwhile people had already begun to cast votes in the second round. Now it's all a substance of interpretation. Of course, the government reiterates that it must proceed to be at the helm to guarantee stableness and to manage the country. The opposition, in turn, says that there is no excuse for not giving up power. So possibly it's besides much to say, but we surely have de-Europeanization. Or possibly democracy. I'm afraid that's how you can describe this innovative model due to the fact that we're not at war, so it's not possible to interpret it. We have found a fresh way of interpreting the Constitution. We created a fresh model. You will see that this model can be exported to another European countries. In what way? possibly there will not be specified situations as preventing us from participating in the Diana Iovanovici-Sosoacă election on 5 October last year erstwhile all this madness began. They may not be banned from moving in this way, but let's look at France, for example, where Marine Le Pen will not be able to run if a court ruling on a criminal case which deprives her of public rights is passed. It's the same situation, only arguments are somewhat different. So if you want to get free of any candidate, you don't want individual to take part in the election, just figure out a reason to destruct it. It doesn't substance if it's a constitutional court or a general court. The case against Marine Le Pen has been pending for a very long time and it is adequate that the court will issue a judgement containing a ban on her moving in the next 5 years. And that's it. It's the same line of thinking. In Germany, you can ban the alternate for Germany. Call any cases, any organization positions. This would be akin to the Romanian scenario, with the difference that it would concern the organization and not just the leader of the group. In the background, we have parliamentary elections that will shortly be held in Germany after Parliament has been dissolved there. So as far as the organization is concerned, alternatively than a single policy, you can hold power through the illegalisation of specified a party. Clean up the forefield. In this way, by depriving a individual or opposition organization of rights, only those politicians and groups who respond to individual are allowed to participate in the election race, only those people who agree to global policy.
Democracy, of course, ceases to exist. I think this is what this fresh model looks like – let's call it a Romanian model. any another countries will treat us as an experimental laboratory. As for Ukraine, the difference is simply a war factor. In Europe, the situation is different, at least until we are officially at war. However, we have a political war in which all the European authorities, all those supporting Ursula von der Leyen, all the parties and governments representing her will effort to get free of the groups and politicians with a different approach to European policy, who are gaining expanding support. They would, of course, get free of Viktor Orbán or Robert Fica if they could. In fact, they tried, but they failed. Even though these politicians were already in power, they were strong adequate to resist. But AfD, being in eternal opposition, no longer has specified self-defence. Marine Le Pen in opposition has no institution to defend herself. They can so effort to implement a akin script in these countries, but besides in Poland. As shortly as a candidate appears who does not share the basic direction of state policy, they can easy – whether it is simply a criminal conviction or otherwise – simply ban him from running.
Other methods are besides used, specified as questioning the authenticity of signatures collected for a candidate. But all these methods are more or little related to the applicable law. On the another hand, erstwhile I read the justification for the court's decision not to let Diana Sosoacă to participate in the elections, I am shocked that it contains references to her political views. This is not about legal or procedural issues, but simply about its views.
– Which are protected by immunity. The immunity of the Senator, who was then, and now the immunity of the associate of the European Parliament, concerns political views, all political positions. The essence of the immunity of elected politicians has so been annulled. Its essence is the anticipation of free speech, without fear of consequences. It is simply a warrant of freedom of speech and political opposition. If you nullify this immunity involving political statements, you fundamentally subjugate the roots of the essence of democracy. The opposition loses its right to talk freely due to the fact that its representatives may be prosecuted. In addition, possible future actions were subject to judgment, as even unfavorable Romanian experts noted. They found it unacceptable to justice people for something they had not yet done. The justification for the Constitutional Court's decision stated that it would not respect the Constitution in the event of election as President. The court is so subject to future action, and specified a thing can only be found in discipline fiction films, in which we have secret state police reading a tendency and accusing individual on the grounds that in a year or 2 he may become a criminal, which is due to his current behavior. That's what we did. She was accused of breaking the law in the future, which is something no 1 has always heard of.
It's like Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.
– Yes, it is simply a probability that in the future you will do something against the law or against the state. It's unusual. Besides, her comments were alternatively normal. It was about criticism of the European Union. 1 3rd of the European Parliament criticises the EU. Its full right side, and even the left side – not the socialist party, but the left side – besides criticises the EU. If we were to extend this approach, then 1 3rd of the European Parliament, 1 3rd of the organization in Europe should be blocked, due to the fact that in the next elections candidates and parties critical of the EU receive about 1 3rd of the vote. The same applies to NATO criticism, due to the fact that it goes hand in hand. 1 decision could so be to destruct from political life, to take distant the anticipation of preaching previews and to take distant the political freedom of 1 3rd of the European Union's population.
The case of Diana Sosoacă was most likely specified an introduction to the next step, meaning the annulment of the results of the first circular of presidential elections in Romania. What were the authoritative reasons for this decision? I read that even Klaus Iohannis and respective another politicians from the current Romanian establishment admitted that there was no evidence of Russian interference in the elections, but that it is probably.
– Something like it's gonna happen, so we're gonna gotta cancel the election right now. It was a clear transition to the next rungs. To begin with, the candidate was eliminated for his statements and for possible political intentions in the future. The elections were subsequently cancelled due to the likelihood of interference with them, or due to the fact that there is simply a anticipation in future of changing Romania's abroad policy to a more peaceful, anti-war and human-oriented. After all, specified trends are seen in polls, not only in Romania, but throughout Europe. The next step was taken. erstwhile it comes to interference in elections, it's the press. We keep reading texts from various journalists and analysts who talk about influences, pro-Russian policies, pro-Russian declarations. At any point it gets funny, but it's inactive just opinions. We have freedom of speech, so let them write. But it ceases to be fun erstwhile these opinions become the law, erstwhile the view of those who claim that everyone who speaks of peace is pro-Russian, due to the fact that it is mostly said, becomes part of the justification for the annulment of elections by the Constitutional Court. The fact that individual writes on their laptop texts against individual else, against peace negotiations, against Russia, against those who search solutions to conflict, ending the war is 1 thing. But erstwhile people with the top power in Romania, or members of the Constitutional Court, who are not judges, but political denominations, do so, it is different. They're politicians. Before joining the Constitutional Court, they were politicians. So they have no peculiar title. And these people gather together and find that this or another candidate, specified as Diana Sosoacă, says things they don't like. And what do they do? They're banned from running. In principle: – These elections can end not as we would like, due to the fact that we want to win them both, our man. Will he win them? Nope. And if you don't, it means you gotta say something about Russia.
Thank you for talking to me.
Matthew Piskorski spoke
Clement Sava is simply a Romanian legislature Senator for the SOS organization Romania, Secretary of the legislature abroad Affairs Committee and Head of the legislature club of the group.
Think Poland, No. 5-6 (2-9.02.2025)
