Va-PoReg Country Report Romania 1900–2025

On 01/24/1859 the Autonomous Principality of Romania was founded. In 1866 Romania became a kingdom and achieved independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878. Romania reached international recognition of on 07/13/1878 by the Treaty of Berlin. On 03/25/1881 the Kingdom of Romania was established formally as a constitutional monarchy, although we classify the regime as an autocratic monarchy, resulting from insufficient constraints on the executive branch. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were limited. In accordance with LIED, only multiparty legislative elections were held during this period. No executive elections were present. According to Polity5, during this period, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. In this timeframe, LIED identifies political liberties as absent, while V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as indicating that political liberties were somewhat present.

On this date Mackensen’s elite troops crossed the Danube at two points close to Svishtov.¹ By early 1917, the Romanian army was defeated, and three-quarters of the country were occupied by German and Austro-Hungarian forces.² According to LIED multiparty legislative elections were held. However, they were not competitive (LIED). According to Polity5, during this period, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were limited. LIED identifies political liberties as absent, whereas V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as suggesting that political liberties were somewhat present.

On 11/11/1918, a day before Germany surrendered, King Ferdinand mobilized the Romanian army once more to support the Entente Powers.² Universal suffrage for men was established by Royal Decree in November 1918, the first elections based on universal suffrage took place in November 1919.³ According to LIED, only multiparty legislative elections were held during the year 1918. In 1919 multiparty executive and legislative elections were conducted. Between the period from 1920 to 1927 only multiparty legislative elections were held again. Thereafter in 1928 and 1929 multiparty executive and legislative elections were present. From 1930 onward, only multiparty legislative elections were held once again during this period. No executive elections were present. Literate women were given the right to vote in the local elections in 1929. According to Polity5, during this period, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. For the relevant regime period, 1918-1937 V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were limited. LIED still identifies political liberties as absent, while V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as indicating that political liberties were somewhat present.

King Carol II organized a self-coup in which the constitution was suspended, martial law was proclaimed and in which he seized emergency powers.⁴ The electoral law of 1939 extended the active voting rights to all literate citizens which were 30 years old or older. However, this was meaningless, since he established a dictatorship, which abolished the parliamentary system, dismissed the government, and banned political parties (Hitchins 2014: 168, 174, Casey et al. 2020: 15). The 1938 Constitution of Romania was the fundamental law of Romania from the time of its adoption until 1940. It formed the legal basis for the royal dictatorship of King Carol II.⁵ The constitution was severely authoritarian and corporatist in nature. It codified Carol’s emergency powers, turning his reign into a legal dictatorship. It abandoned the principle of separation of powers in favor of royal supremacy.⁵ The king exercised legislative power through a Parliament elected according to corporatist principles. He exercised executive power through a government that he appointed and dismissed without parliamentary involvement. He could dissolve Parliament at any time and rule by decree, and was the sole person empowered to amend the Constitution.⁵ According to LIED, only multiparty legislative elections were held in 1938. During 1939 only legislative elections were conducted but they were not categorized as multiparty. No executive elections were present. Based on Polity5’s assessment, during this period, the executive operated with unlimited authority, facing no institutional checks on power. For 1938 and 1939, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were absent.

After signing in 1940 lopsided treaties with Nazi Germany that resulted in the loss of large Romanian territories, Carol appointed General Antonescu as the new leader. General Antonescu quickly consolidated power and forced Carol to abdicate. After this, Antonescu became the leader of Romania and formed a coalition with the fascist Iron Guard. He eliminated political parties and repressed political opponents (Hitchins 2014: 204-5, 208, Casey et al. 2020: 16). The so-called National Legionary State was declared on 09/14/1940 by Michael I, son of Carol II, the former acting under the pressure of Antonescu.⁶ Several antisemitic decrees were enacted by the National Legionary State. Jewish-owned rural property was expropriated on 10/04 October, followed by forests on 11/17, and finally by river transport on 12/04. On 01/02/1941, the Iron Guard attempted a coup, combined with a pogrom against the Jews of Bucharest.⁷ Within four days, Antonescu successfully suppressed the coup. The Iron Guard was forced out of the government. After the Legionary Rebellion, more than 9,000 individuals were implicated and later apprehended. Out of this number, precisely 1,842 individuals received sentences of varying lengths, spanning from a few months to life imprisonment.⁷ German officials, under the directives of Hitler, including the newly appointed Ambassador Manfred Freiherr von Killinger, assisted Antonescu in eliminating the Iron Guardists.⁸ While the so-called National Legionary State dissolved on 02/14/1941 the fascist dictatorship continued under Antonescu. Antonescu completely accepted Hitler’s ideas about Operation Barbarossa as a „race war“ between the Aryans, represented by the Nordic Germans and Latin Romanians on the Axis side vs. the Slavs and Asians, commanded by the Jews on the Soviet side.⁸ According to LIED, no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held during the specified period. For the given period, LIED identifies political liberties as absent, while V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as indicating that political liberties were not really present. Based on Polity5’s assessment, during this period, the executive operated with unlimited authority, facing no institutional checks on power. For 1940-1943, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were absent.

Ion Antonescu was overthrown by Michael I with the support of several political parties so Michael could join the Allies in the Second World War and stop supporting the Axis.⁹ In August 1944, during a Soviet offensive into Romania, King Mihai ordered the arrest of Antonescu and appointed General Constantin Sănătescu as prime minister. Sănătescu formed a new government and sought peace with the Allied Powers (Hitchins 2014: 214-218, Casey et al. 2020: 16).¹⁰

Shortly after, Romania formally joined the Allied effort as Soviet troops entered Romania. The Red Army occupied most of Romania as enemy territory prior to the signing of the Moscow Armistice of 09/12/1944. On 03/06/1the Soviets forced King Michael to appoint Petru Groza, a communist sympathizer, as prime minister. He in turn appointed a communist dominated coalition government and a communist commander of the armed forces. With control over the police, military, judiciary, communication, propaganda, and public works, the communists consolidated their political power for the following three years. King Michael was forced to abdicate by the leader of the communist party on 12/31/1947 (Hitchins 2014: 219, Van Dyke 1947: 373-78, Sudetic 1990, Tismaneanu 2003: 90-95, Casey et al. 2020: 16, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 90). According to LIED, no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held until 1945. In 1946, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period. According to Polity5, during this period, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. For 1944-1946, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were absent. LIED still identifies political liberties as absent, whereas V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as showing that political liberties were not really present.

On this date, the Paris Peace Treaty between Romania and the Soviet Union was signed, formally ending the Soviet Union’s occupation regime. The treaty officially terminated the state of war between Romania and the Allied Powers. However, Soviet troops did not fully leave Romanian territory; they remained in the country pursuant to Article 21 of the treaty, which permitted continued Soviet military presence to maintain lines of communication with Soviet forces in Austria. At this point, the Romanian Communist Party had already gained considerable political power, although the complete consolidation of communist rule was not achieved until King Michael’s forced abdication in December 1947 and the subsequent months. There could be no question of negotiations between equal actors; the massive power asymmetry left Romania no genuine room for negotiation. The treaty was concluded under clear Soviet pressure, it nonetheless established a formal, legal framework under international law for the transition from direct occupation regime to a communist ideocracy with continued Soviet military presence. In the Va-PoReg classification logic, this event is coded as a negotiated transition, as the formal termination of the occupation regime was regulated through an international treaty, notwithstanding the fact that the power asymmetry precluded any substantial Romanian bargaining position. On 12/31/1947 King Michael was forced to abdicate at gun point by the leader of the communist party. As a result, the party secretary gained additional powers. The universal suffrage was granted by the 1948 Constitution of Romania.³ In accordance with LIED, both executive and legislative elections were held, but they were not categorized as multiparty. According to Polity5, during this period, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. For the relevant regime period, 1947-1989, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were absent, and V-Dem’s LCE is similarly interpreted as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were also absent. According to FH’s classification for the assessed regime period, a score between 11 and 14 makes the country not free, which we also place in the not free category. For the entire communist period, LIED identifies political liberties as absent, and V-Dem’s PCLI is also classified by us as indicating that political liberties were absent. Ceaușescu’s rule from 1965 onward intensified the autocratic features of the communist regime. As Gelius (2013) emphasizes, Ceaușescu established a highly centralized personalist regime in which all key institutions—including the legislature, judiciary, and party—were subordinated to his authority. Political pluralism was eliminated, dissent suppressed, and a cult of personality institutionalized. The Securitate secret police played a central role in controlling the population and silencing opposition. The regime relied heavily on ideological indoctrination, show trials, and repression to maintain control. This form of rule reflected the ideal type of a communist ideocracy: the leadership claimed ideological legitimacy, enforced orthodoxy, and permitted no institutional constraints or autonomous spheres.

In March 1989, an open letter to President Nicolae Ceaușescu, authored by six notable figures from the Romanian Communist Party (PCR), was published. This letter openly challenged Ceaușescu, criticizing his approach to governance and the economic strategies he had implemented.¹¹ In December after a period of extreme austerity, ethnic tensions rose and became anti-government, which led to a campaign of violent repression, the riots grew and attracted support of the military. On 12/22/1989, in reaction to a popular uprising, Ceausescu and his wife escaped the capital. Following a brief military show trial, they were executed by firing squad on 12/25/1989 (Bachman 2006, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 90).¹² Roman became the effective leader as prime minister (Haggard/Kaufman/Teo 2016: 54). During the uprisings, the political organization National Salvation Front took over the governing part and soon became a political party.¹³ Roman was forced to resign on 10/01/1991 due to protests and was succeeded by Theodor Stolojan who led a caretaker government and negotiated the new constitution and organized the subsequent general elections.¹⁴ According to LIED, both executive and legislative elections were held, but they were not categorized as multiparty. As classified by FH for this regime period, the country is scored from 11 to 14 as not free, which corresponds to our interpretation of not free. LIED identifies political liberties as absent, while V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as suggesting that political liberties were somewhat present. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were absent, and V-Dem’s LCE is similarly interpreted as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were also absent.

On this date general elections were held. Ion Iliescu became president. In the elections, the NSF secured a significant victory, partly due to its media dominance and the opposition’s inability to organize a strong effort. The opposing side comprised revamped National Peasant and Liberal parties, led by former emigrants whose agendas from the interwar era appeared unfamiliar to most voters.¹⁵ The State Department of the United States raised apprehensions regarding organized violence and irregularities in the election process. However, they ultimately determined that these issues did not impact the results and declared the elections to be free and fair.¹⁶ Anyhow, based on our observations, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. LIED classifies the elections as not competitive from 1990 to 1991. From 1990 to 1992, based on Polity5’s assessment, the executive encountered substantial institutional limitations on power. Per FH, in 1990, the country scores between 11 and 14 as not free, which we also interpret as not free. As classified by FH in 1991, the country scores between 9 and 10 as not free, which we interpret as rather not free. According to FH, in 1992 and 1993, the country is partly free with a score of 8, which we interpret as rather not free. For 1990 and 1991, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. In 1992, V-Dem’s JCE and LCE are both interpreted by us as indicating moderate constraints on the executive. According to Tom Gallagher (2005), the period from 1990 to 1996 was characterized by the entrenchment of former communist elites around Ion Iliescu, who ruled through an extensive network of patronage, institutional manipulation, and repression. Gallagher argues that this era represented not a true democratic transition but rather the consolidation of power under a new façade of electoral legitimacy—a process he labels as the „theft of a nation.“ On 10/11/1992 in the second round of the presidential elections on this day Iliescu won against oppositional candidate Emil Constantinescu, candidate of the Romanian Democratic Convention (CDR).¹⁷ We do not share LIED’s assessment that elections in Romania were competitive since 1992. V-Dem’s CEI indicates ambiguous cleanliness scores since 1990. Whereas V-Dem’s PCLI already indicates full political rights since 1991. From 1993 to 1995, based on Polity5’s assessment, the executive encountered still substantial institutional limitations on power. In 1996, based on Polity5’s evaluation, the executive’s power was limited to a degree between substantial constraints and parity with other institutions, fitting Intermediate Category 3. Per FH, in 1994 and 1995, the country scores between 6 and 7, categorized as partly free, which we interpret as rather free. As per FH’s classification in 1996, the country receives a score of 5 as free, which we categorize as rather free. On 11/17/1996, general elections were held. The government of lon Iliescu, a successor to the Communist party, was defeated in a regularly scheduled election by Emil Constantinescu of the liberal Democratic Convention. The 1996 election was the first relatively clean election, and the first time the post-Communist successor party had been forced to yield power (Haggard/Kaufman/Teo 2016: 54-55). Until this election Romania was a borderline case between an electoral democracy and an electoral hybrid regime.

We choose 01/01/1997 as the regime change date because it marks the official assumption of office by Emil Constantinescu following the 1996 elections. While the electoral breakthrough occurred in November 1996, the effective transfer of executive power and the start of governance under new democratic conditions began only with the inauguration. From 1997 to 2004 according to V-Dem’s CEI the elections in Romania were somewhat clean. In 2005 ambiguous cleanliness is scored. Between 2006 and 2016 there is a return to somewhat clean elections. Since 2017 the elections are considered clean (V-Dem CEI). Following V-Dem’s EF&FI the overall election conditions are somewhat free and fair until 2003. From 2004 to 2007 the overall conditions are classified as somewhat free and fair. Since 2008, full freedom and fairness is achieved again (V-Dem EF&FI). In addition, per LIED political liberties are absent until 2005 and present afterwards. As per FH’s classification from 1997 to 2003 the country is considered free with a score ranging from 2 to 4, which we also interpret as free in our framework. According to FH, in 2004, the country is rated as free with a score of 5, which we interpret as rather free in our framework. Per FH, from 2005 onward, the country is classified as free, scoring between 2 and 4, which we also place in the free category. Until 2003, based on Polity5’s evaluation, during this period, the executive’s power was limited to a degree between substantial constraints and parity with other institutions, fitting Intermediate Category 3. Since 2004, as per Polity5’s classification, the executive’s authority was on par with or below that of other branches, reflecting executive parity or subordination. The judiciary operates generally independent, the lifting of the Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification (CVM) by the European Commission at the end of 2022 reflected progress.¹⁸ In 2004, concurrent elections for the presidency and the parliament were held and Adrian Nastase, who was prime minister at the time, ran for presidency against Traian Basescu. Basescu won the elections and Nastase resigned from the office of prime minister. Basescu, as new president, appointed Călin Constantin Anton Popescu-Tăriceanu of the National Liberal Party as prime minister. At this point, the president is considered the effective ruler instead of the prime minister. On 01/01/2007 Romania joined the European Union.¹⁹ In April 2007 Basescu was impeached by the parliament for unconstitutional conduct but he returned to office in May 2007 when he won a national referendum that was supposed to confirm his impeachment. In 2012, he was again tried for impeachment by the parliament and this time the national referendum turned out in favor for impeachment, but because the required quorum of 50% was not met, Basescu was reinstated as president. In 2014, after having served two terms, he could not run again for presidency.²⁰ Romania has a dual executive with a bicameral parliament, consisting of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. Romania has a multiparty system with parties operating freely in a competitive environment.¹⁸ On 12/06/2020 parliamentary elections for both houses were held, which was generally free and credible.¹⁸ In October 2021, the governing party (PNL) was defeated in a vote of no confidence. Subsequently, in November, a coalition government was established, headed by Nicolae Ciucă of the PNL, in partnership with the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR).²¹ Regarding to Va-PoReg’s classification Romania is in this period an electoral democracy. The 2024 presidential election was annulled after the first round of voting. In the first round Calin Georgescu, a far-right independent candidate, won the most votes. Georgescu had been viewed as a minor candidate without a real chance. On 12/06/2024 the Constitutional Court annulled the election two days before the second round was scheduled. The election was annulled due to allegations of Russian interference.²² The annulment was followed by a wave of protests that grew in scale and intensity over time.²³ On 05/18/2025 the independent candidate Nicușor Dan was elected president, but his opponent George Simion requested that the election should be annulled because of mass voter fraud. His request was rejected by the Constitutional Court and Dan became president on 05/26/2025.

For 1993-2003, V-Dem’s JCE is classified by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, whereas V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were robust. From 2004 to 2012, in 2017 and in 2021, V-Dem’s JCE and LCE are both interpreted by us as indicating robust constraints on the executive. For 2013-2016, in 2020 and in 2022, V-Dem’s JCE is classified by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were comprehensive, whereas V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were robust. For 2018, V-Dem’s JCE and LCE are both interpreted by us as indicating moderate constraints on the executive. For 2019, V-Dem’s JCE is classified by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, whereas V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were robust. For 2023, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were robust, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. For 2024, V-Dem´s LCE remains moderate, while V-Dem´s JCE shifts to a moderate interpretation. Based on our observations, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. From 1996 onward, Romania is classified as free by FH, with a score of 4, except in 2004 when it received a score of 5, which we interpret as rather free. LIED classifies the country from 2006 on as a polyarchy (liberal democracy), while RoW does not and classifies it as an electoral democracy. Its classification according to V-Dem is comparable to that of a better-functioning semidemocracy, where democratic principles are largely upheld but serious challenges to democratic governance persist. In some years, V-Dem classified Romania as a full democracy, did however not consistently do so. We agree in this case with RoW. According to our observation Romania is a democracy, however, does not fulfill the high standards of a liberal democracy in a comparative perspective.

Electoral Democracy as of 07/01/2025 continued.

Additional sources (Gilberg 1990, Freedom House 1989, King 1980, Paun 2008, Verheijen 1999, Gelius 2013)