A political era is ending in Romania. The next one could be even worse
Romanians need imagination and will to think beyond the heritage and presidential model of Băsescu
France had Gaullism. Argentina had Peronism, an ideology based on the legacy of its former president Juan Domingo Perón. Trumpism is presently on the rise, with admirers and copycats worldwide. Romania had its own -ism, although lesser known. Some still copy his style, most still carry his ideas, but few would admit that they get their inspiration from former president Traian Băsescu.
Although his presidency lasted only 10 years, his influence on Romanian politics lasted twice as much. Based on three main principles: anti-corruption, neoliberalism and populism, his tenets have been the core of right-wing politics since 2004. And political successors have not done much to move past them.
However, this may soon change. The Romanian landscape has gone through a political cataclysm in the last year. Factions have shifted, social realities have radically changed, the world is a very different place from 20 years ago. Are we seeing the end of Băsescu’s legacy and style of doing politics? Or just its metamorphosis in a new age of politics?
As it’s often said, when one door opens, then another one closes. Politics abhors a vacuum. Will this open the door for a political move towards solidarity? Or towards a slide into more extremist populism?
How it started
Back in 2004, then mayor of Bucharest, Traian Băsescu, was thrown late in the race for president by the united right-wing opposition. He found himself at a significant disadvantage in front of the incumbent prime-minister from the social-democrats. His winning strategy was to make corruption the primal focus point of his campaign. Promising not only to make the justice system independent from politics, but to get rid of local barons, eradicate theft and „fight against the corrupted and mafia-like system”.
His vision is that of a president who would be outside of politics. Above politics even, siding with ”The People” against politicians.
Rather than viewing reform as a process of complex political doings, the president should be a knight in shining armor, a hero of the people that spearheads judicial reforms and brings justice. His populism was somewhere between a Trumpian discourse on politics and the Ataturk paternalistic vision.
This only increased after winning the 2004 elections. For instance, the Parliament suspended him once in 2007 and a referendum was held in order to depose him. He won the referendum, and his image of the ”man against the system” increased. In 2009, Băsescu was the one to hold a referendum in order to reduce the number of MPs from 471 to 300. Which, of course, he won. The fact that the Parliament refused to implement the result again strengthened his image. Right wing politicians today still use this reduction today in their campaigns.
But his most popular project by far was his anti-corruption campaign.
In a 2004 declaration he told his political adversaries: ”You can’t destroy me! I’ll see you on spikes in Victory Square after the elections!”. This violent declaration was a reference to the popular medieval Romanian ruler Vlad the Impaler who allegedly punished thieves and corrupt noblemen.
The downfall
In 2009, all of the political parties – except his own – had turned against Băsescu, but he managed to win the presidential elections that year with razor sharp margins. With the lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis, the Romanian government proceeded to a harsh austerity program, cutting public-sector employees’ salaries by 25%. Hospitals were closed and social programs were slashed. His discourse on ”lazy Romanians” that don’t work and only collect benefits was also part of his moralist narrative. The cuts galvanized his opponents and alienated his supporters.
The anti-corruption campaign was also under scrutiny: many of the politicians charged for corruption walked out free due to the improper handling of evidence or sometimes lack of evidence altogether. Abuse of the judiciary fed into the narrative that the justice system is not independent, but a weapon in the hands of secret services and the president.
Thus, in 2012 the opposition won a huge victory in the Parliament with 66%. They suspended Basescu again and held another referendum for his removal. Weakened and battered, Basescu asked his supporters to boycott. His strategy worked, the referendum was only 4 points short of the 50% threshold and did not pass. This last ace in his sleeve was his last victory.
The social divide in Romania had reached a peak with some protests turning violent. An artificial animosity was created between public-sector employees and those in the private sector. Also between entrepreneurs and the so-called socially assisted bums.
Over time, numerous corruption scandals surrounded the president’s family and his close political allies. The economic effects of his austerity program were still felt on the day of his departure. He eventually split up with his own party and created his own. Although he managed to get himself elected into the European Parliament in 2019, his career was mostly over by then. Later on, it was discovered that he was a collaborator of the communist secret police, the Securitate, giving information on his colleagues back in the 1970’s. As a president who carried out a report on the crimes of communism and condemned the old regime, it was a huge blow to his career.
What is Băsism?
The ideas put forth by Băsescu are in no way original or unheard of until then, as neither are, for example,Trumpism or Peronism. But the 2004-2014 Băsescu’s presidential tenure was a crucial defining period in Romania΄s transition. Much of his political ideas were already present in national politics, with conservatism and neoliberalism taking roots in the 1990’s. But it was during his tenure when they were formulated into a cohesive strategy and implemented. In the end, his ideological hegemony was so pervasive, that now even the poorest Romanians are against taxes.
Băsism was not so much as a new ideology, but rather the face of 2000’s neoliberalism in Romania and a style of doing politics. Using rhetoric and charisma to promote his agenda, he became one of the most successful post-socialist politicians. Polarisation only strengthened adherence to his cause.
But what truly is Băsism? Leaving personality aside, we could define it as a set of policies and narratives based on 4 main pillars:
- Anti-corruption and a moralistic view on politics
- Neoliberal policies
- A very strong pro-American foreign policy
- Balkan Bonapartism
The ones with the deepest effects were the anti-corruption campaign and his style of Bonapartism. Both are populists and both have had a damaging effect on democratic institutions since.
The type of anti-corruption discourse he promoted ignores structural causes and is based more on a simplistic and moralistic explanation: things are bad because people take bribes; people take bribes because they’re bad. To fix this, we must lock up as many as we can, in order to scare people into becoming law-abiding citizens.
It doesn’t matter, for example, that the national health system is chronically underfinanced. Access to health is absent because doctors take bribes, they say. Therefore, right-wing politicians would argue that we shouldn’t increase finance in the health sector because it would get stolen anyway. First we get rid of corruption, then we increase spending.
Moreover, the anti-corruption campaign, fueled by the involvement of secret services, only strengthened the president’s claim for more power and altered the political ecosystem. Don’t be tricked into imagining that politicians and businessmen were all innocent people abused by prosecutors. But the justice system was probably far more selective than its supporters would admit.
At the same time, Băsescu tried to expand the role of the president far more than a semi-presidential republic would allow. The populist narrative he promoted – that politics is the confrontation between the ”President of the People”, against politicians who are all corrupt – only made trust in the constitutional democratic system to decrease. It was a loose adaptation of Bonapartism to a very balkan context. His narrative against the state, public-sector employees and the pauper has destroyed what was left of class solidarity.
Last but not least, Băsism has also been a blueprint for right-wing politicians since. Since the whole society was already polarised between a separating line, it was easier to just place yourself on one side and continue with the same strategy.
A lack of imagination
Seeing the success Băsescu had, political parties chose to follow in his footsteps and adopted his talking points and agenda: right-wing presidential candidates Iohannis and Monica Macovei in 2014; Save Romania Union (USR) was a party founded explicitly solely on the goal of promoting anti-corruption in 2016; The National Liberal Party (PNL) half-heartedly tried – for a short time – to mimic the same response in the period of the 2017 massive anti-corruption protests.
It wasn’t only politicians who were influenced by Băsescu’s discourse. A whole generation of activists, NGO’s and a significant part of the media adhered to his ideology as well. Society as a whole was polarised on these lines.
Anti-corruption was the main political theme of the 2010’s through all the campaigns. The 2020’s however, have already seen the dawn of a new political current.
In the 2025 presidential elections, Elena Lasconi can be considered as having the closest resemblance to Băsescu’s style. Still, her populist demagogy and focus on anti-corruption only brought her 2,67%. Not that this was the only reason for losing, but the electorate wasn’t all that hyped up about her anti-corruption promises. It was hard to believe that she could deliver on them after the two prebious presidents promised the same. This doesn’t mean that corruption isn’t a political focus anymore – does it ever really go out of fashion? – only that it’s not approached in the same style as it was 20 years ago with a focus on prosecutors.
Nicușor Dan, presidential candidate who qualified in the second tour, has tried a more nuanced approach. Despite creating a party in 2016 who declaratively had a sole-purpose of supporting the anti-corruption campaign, Dan saw that this strategy alone is not a winning ticket anymore. At the same time, his campaign based on honesty and responsible politics doesn’t seem to galvanize people that much. The liberal right is facing an identity crisis and hasn’t come up with something really that new.
By contrast, the far-right has adapted much better to the present context. Take for instance the largest far-right party AUR: it presents itself as a true representative of the people and anti-establishment. It depicts the whole political class as corrupt. Its leader, George Simion, brings about much of the same populist rhetoric.
The far-right doesn’t only feed on public dissatisfaction, but it also approaches problems such as poverty or living wages. This far-right brand of populism has therefore managed to overtake the old populist right not because their solutions to poverty or living wages are well-thought, but simply because the Establishment has failed to even acknowledge these problems.
Starting from the 1990s right wing parties have promised that joining the EU and NATO would automatically bring prosperity. And it did – for some. For those that were left behind, right-wing parties had neither the answer, nor the interest for them.
To this day, they continue to push the same narrative they did two or three decades ago, no matter how detached from reality it seems.
It’s not about a certain candidate or party, but about a complete lack of imagination. The old political parties seem disconnected from society and haven’t managed to adapt to it. Much less to reinvent themselves. On the contrary, some cling even harder to slogans that seem to have come out from a 2008 campaign. It seems that the decline of old right-wing populism has not opened the path for a more leftist movement, but for a violent shift even further to the right.
The reason why we don’t have a political force on the left is not only the lack of resources or enough people. It’s also a lack of imagination on how things could be different at a societal level. All the political debate has been centered on a few focus points (i.e. anti-corruption, the judiciary, lowering taxes), therefore leaving no air for any other subjects or ideas.
The vision that far-right candidates have put forth (nationalisation of key industries; redistribution of agricultural land; return to simpler, more traditional times etc.) are improbable to ever materialize. But being the only ones radically different from the status quo brought them huge electoral success. Many Romanians seem desperate for change, no matter in what direction.
The fact that the establishment only promises more of the status quo with a few reforms, if any, is a losing bet in the long run. Times such as these are ripe for alternative political ideas. It remains to be seen if we can not only imagine a better world, but also act on it.
Photo: archives of presidency.ro (cropped).
Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!
Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!
About The Author
