Romania : when democracy falters under the weight of human interference or algorithms

A political crisis in the French spotlight

Since the Romanian Constitutional Court's decision to annul the November 2024 presidential election, and then to reject Călin Georgescu's candidacy for the rescheduled election in May 2025, the political crisis in Romania has been at the centre of French media attention. This reality, marked by suspicions of foreign interference and controversial use of social media, including TikTok, raises fundamental questions about democracy, digital manipulation and outside influences. The French media, such as France Info, Le Monde, Le Point and BFMTV, oscillate between a firm condemnation of alleged authoritarian excesses and a reflection on the vulnerabilities of modern democratic systems. This article explores their positions on the Court's decision, how they describe Călin Georgescu, their analysis of foreign interference and the role of TikTok, while drawing parallels with the use of social networks in France and elsewhere, especially during the health crisis. Finally, the article questions the role of France, via the visit of its ambassador, and the potential legal repercussions.

The Court's decision: a bulwark or an attack on democracy?

The French media present the initial decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court, dated December 6, 2024, as an exceptional response to an unprecedented situation. France Info reports that the cancellation of the election was aimed at countering a “disinformation campaign” orchestrated via TikTok in favor of Georgescu, a candidate, labeled without evidence as a pro-Russian far-right, who came out on top in the first round with 23% of the vote. This measure, described as “rare” by Le Monde, but reminiscent of the role of Bayrou's sponsorship bank in France that helped choose candidates, is often portrayed as an effort to protect electoral integrity in the face of “serious irregularities” and “foreign interference.” Documents declassified by the Romanian presidency, referring to a “coordinated guerrilla war” on social networks, are cited as a key justification.

However, a nuance emerges in some comments. Le Point, for example, notes that this cancellation, a first in Europe for suspicions of digital interference, could be perceived as an “attack on popular choice” by Georgescu's supporters and supporters, who denounce a “coup d'état”. The media also highlight the indictment of Georgescu in February 2025 for “false statements” about the financing of his campaign and “incitement to unconstitutional actions”, reinforcing the idea of a justice system determined to remove a candidate deemed dangerous. They are therefore quicker to draw the indictment in this case and to recall the presumption of innocence in other cases, remember that outgoing President Iohannis has been the subject of about twenty procedures. While Le Monde insists on the need to “protect democracy”, others, such as Stratégies, question the precedents this creates: can a court invalidate a popular vote in the name of the fight against disinformation without weakening democratic legitimacy?

Călin Georgescu: between “TikTok messiah” or a Kremlin pawn, are the media forgetting the Romanian people?

The figure of Călin Georgescu is at the heart of French media narratives, which portray him with a mixture of fascination and concern. BFMTV nicknamed him the “messiah of TikTok”, a nickname taken up by Euronews, highlighting his meteoric rise thanks to an exclusively digital campaign. A former senior civil servant who is almost unknown, Georgescu is presented as a pro-Russian ultranationalist, hostile to the EU and NATO, an admirer of Vladimir Putin and a Covid-19 denier. Le Monde reports his provocative statements, such as his praise of the Romanian collaborationist leaders of the Second World War or his assertion that “the war in Ukraine does not exist”.

This portrait, often caricatured, is used to justify the measures taken against him. France Info insists on its “artificial popularity”, boosted by manipulated algorithms and secret funding, estimated at nearly one million euros according to the Romanian intelligence services. However, some media, such as Le Point, recognize the resonance of his discourse with a population tired of corruption and traditional elites, a fertile ground exploited by his digital supporters. This ambivalence reflects a tension: Georgescu is both a symptom of democratic flaws and a convenient scapegoat to explain a wider crisis.

Foreign interference and TikTok: a tool under surveillance

Foreign interference, mainly attributed to Russia, dominates French analyses. France Info and Le Monde speak of a “sophisticated operation” aimed at destabilizing Romania, a key NATO member and supporter of Ukraine. The Romanian intelligence services, relayed by Euronews, point to a network of 25,000 TikTok accounts suddenly activated before the election, orchestrating a pro-Georgescu campaign with influencers paid without their knowledge. Le Point compares these tactics to those seen in Moldova and Georgia, suggesting a broader Russian strategy in Eastern Europe.

TikTok, a Chinese social network with 9 million users in Romania, is at the center of criticism. BFMTV and Touteleurope.eu report that the platform has been “flooded” with content favorable to Georgescu, propelling his notoriety from 1% to 22% in a few weeks. The French media deplore TikTok's inability to moderate these manipulations, despite its commitments under the European DSA regulation. The European Commission, Euronews notes, has intensified its surveillance, demanding explanations on recommendation algorithms.

TikTok in France: a troubling parallel with Macron

This focus on TikTok in Romania contrasts with its acceptance in France as a legitimate political tool. Emmanuel Macron, with his 5.3 million followers on TikTok, uses the platform to spread official messages, especially during the health crisis or election campaigns. Le Point does not question this practice, considering it a modern adaptation of political communication.

The numbers speak for themselves: Georgescu has 3.5% of followers on TikTok while Macron has more than double that with 7.8%.

So, if Macron benefits from a visibility amplified by algorithms, why would this be an “interference” in Romania and not in France? The French media do not explore this contradiction, revealing a form of bias: the use of TikTok is tolerated when it serves figures aligned with Euro-Atlantic values, but denounced when it favors actors perceived as hostile.

Social networks and the health crisis: a double norm

This double standard extends to social networks in general. During the health crisis, the French government collaborated with X and Facebook to moderate content deemed disinformative. Posts on X reveal that official instructions guided the removal of anti-vaccine posts, while Le Monde reported similar interventions in the United States under the Biden administration. These practices, although criticized by some as censorship, were justified in the name of public health. In Romania, the use of TikTok to promote Georgescu is instead stigmatized as illegitimate “propaganda.” This dichotomy illustrates a fundamental tension: social networks oscillate between tools of freedom of expression and vectors of manipulation, depending on who controls them.

Subsidies and network capture: a double-edged sword

The French media, such as Stratégies, also underline the role of funding in this crisis. The $381,000 injected into Georgescu's campaign, via illegal donations according to France Info, shows how subsidies can divert social networks into propaganda tools. In France, public subsidies to the media or partnerships with platforms such as Meta raise similar questions: who decides the “truth” broadcast? The capture of these tools by state or private actors, whether in the Kremlin or Western governments, turns a potentially liberating space into an ideological battlefield.

The visit of the French ambassador: a mirror interference?

A troubling aspect, relayed by posts on X but little covered by the French mainstream media, concerns the visit of the France ambassador to Bucharest in 2025. According to these sources, he met the president of the Constitutional Court to “protect democracy” by supporting the rejection of Georgescu's candidacy. If true, this could be interpreted as French interference, a shame at a time when Paris condemns Moscow. Le Point briefly mentions France's concerns about digital manipulation, but ignores this visit. Could the Romanians take legal action against France?

There is nothing to indicate such a movement for the moment, but the perception of Western foreign influence could fuel the mistrust of the EU, already palpable in the pro-Georgescu demonstrations reported by Le Monde.

Between freedom and control, a precarious balance

The Romanian political crisis, seen through the prism of the French media, reveals the ambiguities of the digital age. The court's decision is hailed as a bulwark against disinformation, but questions popular sovereignty. Georgescu, vilified as a pro-Russian pawn, also embodies real discontent. Foreign interference via TikTok is denounced, but the use of networks by leaders like Macron remains undisputed. The parallels with the health crisis show that the boundary between freedom of expression and propaganda depends on the dominant narrative. Finally, the possible French involvement raises a bitter irony: in the fight against interference, are democracies in danger of becoming what they are fighting?

Romania, in this sense, is a mirror of the dilemmas that await Europe. Dilemmas that do not always seem to be to the advantage of the people but rather to the advantage of those who govern.