0

Short background

In November 2015 the Romanian PM resigned due to street pressure related to a nightclub fire and the President managed to negotiate with the parties to sustain a technocratic government.

However, this government had a short life span because end of 2016 made the social democrats and its allies to get a comfortable parliamentary majority. The campaign was dominated by nationalism and demonizing the technocrats (the term "technocrat" which was little used in the public space became a pejorative term).

Fast forward to 2019 when the EU Parliament elections had the social democrats win less than 30%, a major difference from 2016 results1. Another blow for social democrats is their leader being sent to jail immediately after the elections.

Current events

After the EU Parliamentary elections there are multiple voices asking for snap elections because the voters clearly favor the opposition parties even if local parliamentary elections are scheduled at the end of next year.

I am wondering why mixing EU elections results with parliamentary context especially after the social democrats proved their working majority when the government survived a motion of no confidence.

Judging from events that happened before 2016 it is highly risky to force a new majority because the social democrats proved to be very efficiently when in the opposition, so the win is only on the short term.

Question: What is the rationale of holding national parliament snap elections after the EU elections results?


1 This comparison was often mentioned in the media, but it is not technically correct because of the different elections rules / context. A major difference is that diaspora can send only 6 MPs in the national parliament as opposed to proportional voting system used for EU Parliament elections which favored the opposition parties (they got more that 90% votes in the diaspora who struggled at long queues to vote). Also there are some barriers related to voting in a city that is different from the ID location.

  • I do not see the relation of the vote of no confidence with the snap elections. The vote of no coincidence was passed because enough MPs supported the government, but a new election would perhaps replace most of those MPs for others who do not support the government. – SJuan76 Jun 20 at 8:10
  • @SJuan76 - there is no direct relation, but its failure means that current coalition has still have the majority in the parliament. Also I was thinking more about why risk snap elections when the history has shown that it is not a good idea (to force a majority that has a small chance of living the next elections). I will change the question to be more clear about that. – Alexei Jun 20 at 8:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .