TheMarketForIdeas

While Christmas is universally viewed as a time of holiday cheer and merriment in all countries that celebrate it, it also represents a time for solemn contemplation for Romania. It was on Christmas Day in 1989 that dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu and his wife Elena were executed following the conclusion of a bloody revolution to overthrow the communist regime. They were also the last people to receive the death penalty at the end of a now controversial trial before it was abolished. Their deaths thus marked the end of the communist era, an end that ushered in a long transition towards the democracy that the Romanian populace had long since yearned for, and for the past three and a half decades, Romania’s geopolitical direction has been decidedly Euro-Atlantic, cemented by its accession to the EU and NATO.

Nearly thirty-five years later, the results of Romania’s first round of presidential elections took the entire media by storm, shocking candidates, social scientists and voters alike. Călin Georgescu, an independent candidate with a strong anti-EU, anti-NATO and pro-Russia rhetoric, a candidate whom most of the media and political parties largely ignored, with very limited public appearances and whom pollsters expected to be voted by less than 10% of the estimated turnout, managed to win the first round of the elections, garnering nearly 23% of votes, upsetting all pre-election predictions and calculations. Georgescu isn’t altogether unknown to the general public, having been nominated by the nationalistic Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) as their proposition for prime-minister in 2021 before the faction broke off with him due to his statements defending far-right figures from Romania’s past. He is no stranger to politics either, having worked within Romania’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Environment and has served for a while as the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur for human rights and hazardous waste. However, during the current campaign he kept a low profile, slipping under the radar as the spotlight focused on the most popular candidates.

Maverick Outsider or Manchurian (Muscovite?) Candidate?

His status as the dark horse of this year’s presidential race in Romania has drawn much attention, and much turmoil has since sparked as investigations have brought to public attention several of his controversial political stances, particularly his harsh take on the EU and NATO, his sympathies for Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, as well as his suggestions that Romania should seek to benefit from what he called “Russian wisdom” and adopt a more neutral stance in international relations, even hinting that Romania should exit the EU and NATO, albeit he has recently denied such intentions, stressing instead the necessity of prioritizing the country’s national interest and of maintaining good relations with the neighboring countries. His rhetoric has been described as nationalistic, populist, far-right, fraught with Orthodox Christian mysticism portraying himself as a messianic savior sent to restore Romania’s glory, peppered with at best questionable claims, and was compared with that of fascist ideologues and leaders from Romania’s interwar period. His proposed economic policies have been described as unrealistic at best and outright disastrous at worst.

In particular, Georgescu’s use of TikTok for his campaign has come under fire as he managed to gather a sizable followship on the platform that polling institutes and social scientists failed to factor in their predictions. Most notably, his campaign has consisted in a very finely tuned and targeted operation to promote his image by exploiting the platform’s algorithms to cause his ads to be featured as trending, expanding his reach and his audience. Not only that, but sophisticated AI algorithms were used to tailor messages and ads per the specific profiles of the various segments of his audience. Allegations of priests influencing voters, of online influencers being paid to promote his message and suspicions regarding the funding of his campaign have further compounded the issue. Tensions flared when Romania’s Supreme Council of National Defense revealed that not only have there been cyberattacks attempting to hijack to vote count, but also that several Russia-affiliated accounts and that Georgescu’s campaign has been illegally assisted by TikTok offering him an unfair advantage by not imposing the same constraints and restrictions on his ads as for other candidates.

The Enemy of My Enemy

At the same time, almost immediately after the results of the first round, marches began to take place against Georgescu’s initial victory denouncing him as a fascist throwback threatening the country’s democracy who is bound to instate a totalitarian democracy much like the communist era. This led to a rare display of solidarity in Romanian politics as the vast majority of politicians and the media banded together, putting aside their usual mutual animosities and squabbles to combat this new candidate strongly suspected of intending to divert Romania from the path the country has trodden thus far, launching incisive enquiries into Georgescu’s dealings while avoiding any negative comment against his opponent in the second round, Elena Lasconi, around whom all the parties staunchly favoring Romania’s Euro-Atlantic path have coalesced. Additional charges of electoral fraud levelled against other candidates eventually led to Romania’s Constitutional Court ordering a full-scale recount of all the votes.

While the Constitutional Court initially validated the first round, public pressure led to the Romanian president declassifying the intelligence reports from the country’s Supreme Council of National Defense about Georgescu’s TikTok campaign, including suspicious Russia-affiliated account activity ramping in the run-up to the elections and evidence of considerable funding directed towards promoting his image despite his adamant claim that he had spent no money whatsoever during his campaign, which is quite unusual. The gravity of a possible case of high treason as defined by the Romanian law (in this case, colluding with a foreign power to interfere with the elections) caused additional public pressure in light of these revelations, all of which have eventually determined the Romanian Constitutional Court to take an unprecedented decision and cancel the electoral process altogether, effectively rewinding it back to square one, meaning that Romanians could well be called upon to vote once more in spring 2025. Since there is no legal path to challenge or overturn a decision issued by the Constitutional Court, this means their verdict is final. This irked both Georgescu and, ironically enough, his opponent. Both candidates and several politicians affiliated with them have decried this call as undemocratic, which is bitterly ironic especially when it comes from factions that explicitly declared themselves pro-democratic as one would expect them to put safeguarding the integrity of the country’s democratic processes above any other interest.

Of Forests and Leaves…

Analysts were rightly puzzled that Romanian voters would swing so strongly towards a candidate whose philosophy diverges from the Euro-Atlantic path that the majority of Romanians favor. The most common explanation offered is that the voting pattern reflects a high level of dissatisfaction with the establishment. Indeed, while most candidates from Romania’s major parties chose to heed the time-honored political tradition of attacking and smearing each other rather than speaking about their visions and solutions for the country’s most pressing problems, Georgescu’s campaign relied on populist messages reinforcing support for traditional values and economic promises that played to people’s hopes. Another explanation offered even before the revelations brought by the declassified intelligence report is that his TikTok campaign was largely a successful exhibit of the Russian disinformation machine working hard to manipulate the electorship. TikTok representatives were also summoned to the European Parliament to give explanations for the role the platform played in influencing the results of the Romanian elections. At any rate, analysts agree that this turn of events has provided ample proof of the effectiveness of social media in ensuring certain political outcomes.

However, upon closer inspection, none of the factors outlined heretofore are in any way new, barring perhaps the use of machine learning algorithms. The appeal of nationalist ideologies and voting against the establishment isn’t new and has been on an increasing trend for nearly a decade, with right-leaning factions gaining significant ground in traditional democracies, such as Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, Giorgia Meloni and the Brothers of Italy, or Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, and of course Trump’s election and (nonconsecutive) reelection in the United States.

The notion of Russia interfering in democratic elections isn’t novel either, with US President Donald Trump’s 2016 election having been overshadowed by accusations that Russian assets manipulated social media to sway public opinion in his favor, including the infamous Cambridge Analytica incident from the mid-to-late 2010s, and Germany’s AfD party has long since been accused that it receives financing from Moscow.

In the same vein, the fruitful use of social media to drive sociopolitical change can be dated as far back as the Arab Spring of the early 2010s when social media was the vector that enabled the protests which resulted in drastic changes in several countries, such as the Libyan civil war of 2011, the ongoing Syrian civil war or the rise of the Islamic State. Additionally, Twitter diplomacy was acknowledged as its own brand of public diplomacy as far back as 2011. Nevertheless, while the progress of natural language processing in AI is indeed most impressive, a noteworthy aspect of the recent developments that deserves greater consideration isn’t so much the technical side of the algorithms used, but rather how they mirror and exploit foibles of human nature and flaws in the current political discourse.

Social media was a key factor in connecting likeminded people to form communities to engage in dialogue on given topics regardless of geographical barriers, but it also had a side effect: the creation of echo chambers. People are naturally drawn to connect with those most similar to them and who share their own views; hence, the cyberspace has gradually become another area where this inherent human tendency manifests itself. This was further emphasized by the rise of identity politics where aspects of personal identity grew increasingly politicized while, at the same time, political opinions continued to be viewed as an extension of one’s moral character, echoing Aristotle’s concept of man as a “political animal”. Therefore, to any group defined by its adherence to certain political tenets, a fundamentally different opinion is often seen as an exponent of an intrinsic moral failing on a person’s part rather than a different understanding, albeit still in good faith, of how a problem should be approached. A consequence thereof is that, rather than bringing people together to exchange different viewpoints and meet each other halfway through, greater wedges are drawn between communities that hold diverging perspectives. This led to an increase in an oxymoronic form of moral solipsism on a collective level as each group believes their own particular view is the only fundamentally correct one, and anyone landing outside their bubble is labelled as either ignorant, morally bankrupt, or intellectually challenged.

Social media platforms have picked up on this dynamic and implemented sophisticated machine learning algorithms to identify patterns in their users’ preferences to deliver the content they gravitate to the most in order to increase retention, whereas influencers have gained considerable traction owing to their ability to build rapport with their audiences and present their views in a relatable manner, with a system of ‘likes’ and ‘upvotes’ helping users to gauge the social proof of a given perspective or influencer. The abundance of available content combined with their brevity is what gives social media its effectiveness. Bite-sized clips illustrating a watered-down version of a political take with a considerable amount of upvotes presented by a relatable individual with a large following holds greater persuasive power compared to a long-winded televised debate. The principle of least resistance is also applicable to human nature, and heuristic assessments based on rules of thumb and mental shortcuts are often preferred thanks to their expeditiousness. Confirmation bias is also a well-known psychological phenomenon whereby people favor material confirming their prior beliefs. As per the laws of supply and demand, political factions have also sought to adjust their messages according to their respective constituencies, leading to further fragmentation as sizable parts of the population felt increasingly unrepresented by the parties in charge. Disillusionment, disappointment and frustration tend to manifest in a user’s online activity as well, which AI algorithms can detect and reinforce with similar content, resulting in a negative feedback loop.

Hence, the thesis that AI distorts people’s perception and misinforms their judgment misses the forest for the leaves. At its core, AI merely mirrors the very human tendency to find comfort in the familiar, to seek strength among peers, to trust those they feel are most similar to them. It is for this reason that, regardless of their veracity, allegations that the choice of a significant part of the voting population was the result of manipulation and disinformation does little to change their minds and may in fact come across as a dismissal of what they feel are otherwise legitimate grievances, reinforcing their resolve instead of getting them to reconsider while the political class risks giving the impression of sticking its head in the sand to avoid dealing with their critiques.

This was starkly demonstrated by how, despite most political parties rallying against Georgescu, much of their respective constituencies still intended to vote for him (although the overwhelming majority still want the country to maintain its Euro-Atlantic direction), and indeed most polls suggested Georgescu would've won his bout against Lasconi. For all the fears that AI and advanced technologies can be used to sabotage democracies by misdirecting voters’ choices, the effectiveness of such efforts is only directly proportional with a preexisting and prevailing feeling of disappointment with the leading political class.

…And Root (Causes)

When people feel the current leadership no longer aptly represents their interests and presents little to no credibility, they may unwittingly pay attention to information confirming those doubts regardless of the information’s truthfulness. The temptation to believe it is greater if an apparently better alternative is offered. Yet, that does not imply that the voters’ reasons for being dissatisfied with the current leadership are the results of mis- / disinformation. More poignantly, it is the feeling of alienation that drives people to seek support amongst those who share their distrust and dissatisfaction, rendering them susceptible to seemingly credible outlets that confirm their impressions. The outcome of Romania’s elections is thus not so much a defiance of the democracy that the country’s citizens paid for in blood in the winter of 1989, but rather an expression of their disappointment with the establishment. As a result, while banning certain social media platforms or outlets can serve to curtail some attempts at mass manipulation, it not only sets a dangerous precedent that could be used undemocratically in the future but is also at best a palliative measure that doesn’t address the root causes.

In the age of the Industry 4.0 when the tech world is abuzz with enthusiasm for the possibilities opened up by AI and machine learning as well as concern about their potential to be exploited by malevolent actors, at least as much focus should be given to the human side of the equation. In the era of artificial intelligence, we need to remember that we are still only human, which makes investing in honing human intelligence and education paramount. In the era of connectivity through fiber optic and wireless networks, cultivating interpersonal connectivity through rapport and reasoned dialogue rather than combative verbal jousts is at least as important. Building trust, acknowledging needs and grievances, engaging with various parts of the population, seeking compromise and demonstrating consistency and integrity is crucial for politicians and for society on a collective level. Self-awareness, understanding cognitive biases, exercising skepticism, applying critical reasoning, and questioning assertions and sources even (or especially) when they offer one comfort or confirm one’s prior beliefs is crucial for each person on an individual level. Even though democracy does rely on aggregates and coalitions to function, its fundamental unit and building block is the individual and, above all, individual freedom of choice.

The Blues of a New Red Scare?

Criminal investigations have been mounted against those who have been suspected of illegally financing Georgescu’s campaign, and Georgescu’s opponents have called for him to be prosecuted for high treason given the available evidence suggesting he collaborated with Russia to manipulate the Romanian votership in his favor. The warm reactions Georgescu’s results have received from several Russian officials, including from the Kremlin’s resident ideologue, Alexandr Dugin (who also seemingly stated online that Romania would one day be “part of Russia”), certainly didn’t serve to undermine that notion. In a subtle jab at Romania’s democracy, Vladimir Putin snidely derided the Constitutional Court’s decision to recount the votes as an attempt to fraud the elections and get Georgescu out of the race.

Say what you will about politics, but nobody can deny that its inherent cynical hypocrisy is only matched by its penchant for irony. The possibility that Russia could’ve influenced the result of elections in a NATO and EU member state is concerning indeed, especially with regards to the security infrastructure and to the capability of the country to ensure its democratic processes are carried out in a fair, free and transparent manner.

This incident, however, leaves Romania straddling a very thin line to maintain a very fine balance between protecting its democracy against interferences from without as well as against political power plays from within. On the one hand, any attempt by any foreign power to influence the results of the election must be met with extreme prejudice and uncompromising promptitude to the fullest extent of the law. On the other hand, Romania as well as any other democratic state must be careful in the future to not give in to the temptation of using allegations of Russian (or Chinese etc.) interference as a political weapon to smear candidates and evict them from the political scene.

Moreover, painting certain parts of the electorate as brainwashed, ignorant or morally questionable due to their choices is not in any way a productive approach, for even if people may have been unlawfully misled to believe one candidate or another is the best one, that doesn’t mean their disappointment with the current political leadership is the result of foreign-orchestrated disinformation as well, nor does it mean their discontent and concerns are themselves misplaced.

The United States has already lived through several instances of the infamous Red Scare when the rise of communism caused an increase in the fear of Soviet espionage. Though such concerns are understandable and justified given the geopolitical context of its day, it led to the point where “undesirable” people were accused of being communist sympathizers with scarce evidence in order to discredit them, proving that the opposite of an extreme is not necessarily the better option, but merely another extreme.