Romania's new president Nicosur Dan finally looks like he's enjoying life after a campaign full of rancour and division
In the end, he took to the street, walking along the pavement, high-fiving everyone within reach.
After a campaign full of rancour and division, Nicosur Dan, a 55-year-old mathematician, finally looked like he was enjoying life.
His victory was more comprehensive than most had predicted. A week ago, the favourite to win this election was his rival, the populist George Simion, but Dan gradually rose in the polls.
3:17
Among the crowd, there was a sense that some had voted because they wanted him to win, and others had backed him because they didn't like Mr Simion's Donald Trump -inspired brand of strongman leadership. Some even felt it brought back memories of the brutal communist past that once cowed this country.
"I have felt overwhelmed and scared," said Nicoletta. "For the last couple of weeks we lived in terror of returning to something we had to live with for 45 years."
Alongside her was Ada - one of many, many young voters I met in the crowd. She told me she felt like she was "dreaming", after waking up in the morning "worried that the nightmare would not finish".
But now, she was thrilled - convinced that Mr Dan can reinvigorate his country: "We put our trust in him because we don't want to leave the country - we are Romanians by home, we feel Romanian, we think Romanian."
There were many flags here with the blue and yellow of the European Union - few doubt that Mr Dan had more affection for the EU than Mr Simion.
I met a couple who had both draped themselves in EU flags and told me that "we hope we will be going the European way".
Another couple told me they had been terrified that Mr Simion would take Romania out of the EU - a claim he flatly denied when I met him the day before the election.
5:25
We had spoken to Mr Simion earlier in the day, when he seemed quietly confident of victory.
"People are fed up with normal politicians," he told me in the shadow of Bucharest's enormous parliament - the biggest building in Europe.
A landslide, he felt sure, was on the way.
Around him were populist politicians and activists from around the world - including Britain, America, Italy, France, Poland and the Netherlands.
They cheered him, and agreed that victory was within sight. And then came the exit poll, and the realisation that the momentum of his dominant triumph in the first round of this election had faded.
Still, Mr Simion insisted he would win, naming himself as the Romanian president on Facebook.
It was only in the small hours that Mr Simion admitted that he had been beaten by a million votes, emerging to declare that he would keep fighting.
"I will be there in all of the battles we have ahead of us - this work is just starting and I will be there with every one of you," he said, punching the air before walking off.
He wants to remain the leader for, as he puts it, "patriots, sovereignists and conservatives" who want to return to "democracy and common sense".
Romania has had a turbulent six months, starting with the decision to cancel the last presidential election because of suspected Russian interference, and then to ban Calin Georgescu, the man who allegedly benefited from that Moscow master plan.
Even some of Mr Georgescu's most avowed opponents felt uneasy that an election had been cancelled in that way.
Then the schism between the politics of Mr Simion and Mr Dan split the country, as did the lingering sense that Romanian democracy was under scrutiny.
So now the challenge is to unite and heal this nation - a strategically crucial member of both the EU and NATO.
And that is Mr Dan's most immediate challenge. As he was soaking up the cacophony and affection last night, a group of his supporters were opening champagne and pouring out glasses in the street, toasting their new president.
To win is one thing; to prosper is quite another.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
SARAH VINE: Why is 16 too young for voting? Ask a brain scientist...
As the mother of two young adults (22 and 20), I am tentatively enjoying some early fruit of my parental labours. My daughter has just graduated with a first from Manchester (shameless mum-brag, guilty as charged), and my son is gainfully employed over the summer holidays in a job that not only gets him out of the house but also keeps him fit and fed (he's a busser in a restaurant). But the news last week that our glorious leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has followed through on his electoral threat to lower the voting age to 16 has rather dampened my mood. It is, quite simply, the height of idiocy. As any Year 11 teacher will tell you, most 16-year-olds aren't fit to tuck their own shirt in, let alone participate in the democratic process.
Times
a day ago
- Times
I've fought the secret state for decades. Afghan scandal is no surprise
One of the things that struck me most noticeably when moving to the UK from the US in 1997 was the secrecy of the state toward its citizens. Having worked as a crime reporter in America, I discovered that most of the public records and information I used to do my job were actually illegal to access in the UK. I found the secrecy wasn't unique to law enforcement but rather a default attitude among officials. It didn't matter if I were asking for details of food hygiene inspections, parliamentary expenses or police reports, the attitude was the same. A kind of disbelief and then a patronising disdain, by which I was meant to understand that it was not my 'place' as a mere citizen — or subject as I learnt was the UK term — to ask for a full accounting from agents of the state. Instead, I should silently let officials get on with the important business of making decisions in my name and with my money. 'Put up, shut up' seemed to be the norm. This didn't strike me as particularly democratic. I remember battling in 2004 with the Highways Agency, now known as Highways England, just to get contact information for its new freedom of information officer. I was putting together a book, Your Right to Know, about people's new rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) 2000 that was coming into force in 2005. I thought it would be a game-changer for British democracy and I wanted to include contact details for the new FOI units in public agencies. I was used to naming public officials. In America it was no big deal; anonymity was only used if there was a valid reason. But you would have thought I'd asked for nuclear codes such was the shock and pushback I received to this simple request. The idea of providing actual names was anathema and I began to wonder who was the master here, and who the servant. The more I researched my book, the angrier I became. With all the idealism and arrogance of youth, I set out on behalf of the beleaguered British citizen to bring transparency to this secretive and feudal country, training hundreds of journalists to use the FOI Act and making requests myself. The result is probably one you know, when a five-year legal battle culminated in a High Court victory in 2008. I'm talking, of course, about MPs' expenses. Yet even after the court ruling, MPs still refused to publish their full expenses, arguing the public couldn't be trusted with the raw data and so it had to be 'redacted' at great expense and time. • MPs demand to know why they were kept in the dark over Afghan leak The months dragged on while MPs tried to find ways to exempt themselves from their own FOI law. It wasn't until a year later that full details were finally revealed, after an insider who worked in the room where the data was being redacted leaked the full list to the highest bidder on Fleet Street. The civilian employee said he leaked details of the claims because he was angry that, at the same time MPs were secretively claiming for plasma televisions and duck houses, Britain's armed forces in Afghanistan were having to work two jobs just to buy body armour and other vital equipment. A lot has changed since then but not, it seems, the British state's penchant for secrecy. Or the military's supercilious way of dealing with people in Afghanistan. Last week it was revealed that for two years the government used wide-ranging powers to prevent UK media reporting on a data leak of the names of 19,000 Afghans who had applied to move to the UK after the Taliban seized power in 2021. These included interpreters and military assistants who trusted the Ministry of Defence with their personal details and those of their families. Instead of those people being notified they were on a 'kill list', the MoD opted instead to try to lock down all knowledge of the leak. This is how authoritarian states are used to controlling information, but it's become much harder in the digital age. And indeed, while the MoD was successful in gagging the press, the information continued to flow online. As one of the Afghans, a woman known as Person A, told The Times: 'Lives could have been saved if everyone had been told about the leak back in August 2023. It would have enabled them to flee into Iran or Pakistan, which would have bought them some time. These families trusted the MoD and sat waiting for evacuation.' • Larisa Brown: I investigated the Afghan data leak. Ministers were gambling with death The MoD did eventually relocate 7,000 Afghan nationals to the UK, which cost about £850 million of taxpayer money. These were not always the Afghans most in danger, however, but rather those most likely to spread awareness of the leak. The privacy injunction, initially granted for only four months on September 1, 2023, meant there could be no public scrutiny or parliamentary oversight of this decision. The MoD claimed it needed this unprecedented secrecy to get those most in danger out of Afghanistan. But this did not happen, and instead it sought longer and longer extensions. In fact, it was only later, after media court action, that the MoD began relocating Afghans in large numbers. The superinjunction was lifted only on July 15 this year. Secrecy, in the hands of the powerful, is too easy a tool to abuse. The distance from protection to cover-up is short, and a tool initially intended to help can quickly morph into causing harm. That's why it should never be a default for anyone in power, but rather an exception. When I was appointed to the Independent Surveillance Review panel, a group convened in 2014 by the deputy prime minister at the time, Nick Clegg, to look at the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of mass government surveillance, I saw how the former heads of the intelligence agencies were often blind to the dangers of secrecy. They had a faith in officialdom that I didn't share. Where they saw officials using secrecy only for the good of the people, I saw a tool easily abused to hide mistakes, cover up embarrassments and accrue power that corrodes democracy. Such an abuse of secrecy is clear from the Afghan data leak. Instead of owning the mistake and fixing it, the MoD wasted considerable public money to hide the breach for two years, putting many Afghans in harm's way. Secrecy used in this way is not for the protection of the people, but the protection of the powerful. It's about preserving the reputations of officials at all costs. The MoD's use of a worldwide gagging order to cover up its mistake makes it clear that such injunctions have no place in a democracy. The press has a hard enough time getting basic information out of the British state, it shouldn't have to fight battles in secret courts as well. Heather Brooke is an investigative journalist and the author of The Revolution Will Be Digitised
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Join our campaign... to save our shareholder meetings
Britain should become a shareholder democracy, or so Rachel Reeves has decreed. The Chancellor wants to change the 'negative' narrative around investing in the stock market so that more of the nation's £360 billion stash of cash Isa savings is invested in shares. She has a point. The stock market accounts for just 8 per cent of Britons' wealth. Among Americans, it's 33 per cent. At last week's Mansion House speech in the City, Reeves said: 'For too long, we have presented investment in too negative a light, quick to warn people of the risks, without giving proper weight to the benefits.' One of those often overlooked 'benefits' is the right of share owners to hold the boards of companies they own to account. And the forum to do that is the annual general meeting (AGM). Before Covid, AGMs generally were done in person, often over a cup of tea, a few curly sandwiches and a Rich Tea biscuit. Turnout might have been low, and board directors may have had to smile through gritted teeth as they answered seemingly innocuous or irrelevant questions, but it was a small price to pay to maintain a fundamental principle. Since the pandemic, most firms have adopted a hybrid model, giving investors the choice of either watching AGMs online or physically turning up as they used to do. But in recent years, some firms have effectively barred their owners from attending in person by making meetings virtual only. This robs shareholders of a chance to engage with directors face-to-face and gives companies more scope to control proceedings. Drug giant AstraZeneca, defence contractor BAE Systems and toothpaste-maker Haleon have all moved AGMs to what amounts to a digital-only format. The National Grid banned journalists from dialling in to observe the online action. Last month, the entire board of Informa even decamped to the sun-drenched French Riviera for its AGM, meaning UK-based share owners of the events organiser would have had to shell out the best part of £1,000 to attend. Campaigners say firms are doing this to suppress scrutiny, debate and dissent, in a blow to shareholder democracy. And it is not just companies whose shares are listed on the London stock market moving their AGMs to digital-only. Nationwide, Britain's biggest financial mutual, is also under fire for not allowing any of the 16 million members who own the building society to attend this coming Friday's AGM in person, leading to charges that bosses are not being held to account. And there is much to discuss. Members will be asked to approve a controversial plan to hand chief executive Debbie Crosbie a pay package of up to £7 million. It comes as Nationwide is still swallowing Virgin Money after a £2.9 billion deal – the biggest in banking since the financial crisis – which the mutual's members did not get to vote on. Small wonder critics say Nationwide is becoming more like the shareholder-owned High Street banks it parodies in ads fronted by actor Dominic West. For its part, Nationwide says it has seen 'a significant increase' in attendance and engagement since moving to an online format in 2023, reversing a previous decline. But campaigners such as James Sherwin-Smith, who tried to stand for election to the society's board, remain unconvinced. He said: 'Nationwide is the only building society to go virtual-only. It's not a great look for a supposed 'beacon for mutual good'.' He also notes that attendance at Nationwide's online-only AGM last year fell. The move to virtual-only meetings is shrouded in uncertainty and may even be illegal, according to the Financial Reporting Council, a governance watchdog. Ministers are under pressure to clarify the law over the physical location of AGMs to halt the shift online. A review is expected soon. Catherine Howarth of the ShareAction group said: 'It's vital the Government and FRC take steps to stop this pattern in its tracks.' ANNE ASHWORTH: The hoops I had to jump through – just to grill Burberry's bosses! My experience the morning after Rachel Reeves' Mansion House speech suggests there is a long way to go to make being a shareholder less 'negative'. As an investor in Burberry, I was keen to hear the latest on the fashion house's turnaround from its new boss Joshua Schulman at its annual meeting. Unlike some companies, Burberry was not trying to restrict attendance at its London HQ on Wednesday with an online-only event. But, like the vast majority of investors, I hold my shares through an investment platform, meaning I needed a letter of representation from it to attend. It's a process that takes days. I think I should be able to download the letter, rather than emailing my request to the platform and waiting for it to be posted. I may own only a tiny fraction of Burberry, a £4.4 billion firm. But I am still taking a bet on its continued recovery from an ill-fated pivot into expensive handbags. I'm hoping the new management team under Schulman will revive the share price, which at £13.18 is about half of what they were worth more than two years ago. At the meeting, Schulman said Burberry is focusing on coats, scarves and other outerwear now – areas in which it has 'authority'. Shareholders asked about the treatment of cashmere goats, provision against excess stock and Schulman's bonus. You may not share their concerns, but boards should be held to account like this, and it is best done in person in a public forum. Last week, the Government's Digitisation Taskforce set out a shareholder 'bill of rights'. If the Chancellor wants a shareholder democracy, she should implement it – including automatic provision of letters of representation – now.
