Romania, Poland, Portugal election results: Who are the winners and losers?
Multiple EU countries had elections on Sunday. At a time of growing uncertainty and the growth of the Populist Right, these elections are pivotal in shaping the balance of power across the continent. So, who were the winners and losers?
Romania and Poland both held Presidential elections. Romania held its second round, while Poland held its first. Portugal on the other hand had a parliamentary election.
We start with Romania, which had its Presidential Election. Romania has a two-round runoff system for Presidential elections. The two candidates with the most votes in the first round face off in the second against each other. The candidates who made the second round this time were the anti-corruption liberal mayor of Bucharest, Nicusor Dan, and the Populist Right, George Simion, leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians party (AUR). It is worth noting that Dan’s second place finish was quite close as the establishment vote was split among multiple candidates including former Prime Minister, Victor Ponta and former acting President and leader of the National Liberal Party (PNL) Crin Antonescu.
It is also worth mentioning that Romania had elections back in December, and another far-right candidate, Călin Georgescu, looked set to win after winning the first round. His victory was overturned and the election was annulled after reports of Russian interference emerged. The annulment of his victory sparked much anger, which many thought Simion could capitalise on.
Simion won the first round decisively, getting 41% of the vote, while Dan, in second place, got only 21%. However, in the second round, Dan pulled off an upset, and Simion was defeated by a healthy 54%-46% margin.
Simion conceded the election on election night but has since asked for the results to be annulled. He has accused France and Moldova of interfering in the election, something he has yet to prove. Romania’s Constitutional Court rejected his case on Thursday, May 22.
Simion’s party, AUR, is the main opposition and leads the polls for the parliamentary elections. While his loss may bring a sigh of relief for Brussels, he is far from finished politically. His party has come to prominence due to (among other things) railing against Romania’s corrupt establishment. Simion coming as close as he did to the presidency should serve as a warning that a large segment of Romanians are discontent and do not trust the establishment and will vote for candidates like Simion or Georgescu in the future.
It is telling that Simion also won among the Romanian diaspora, especially in the West. Big Romanian diaspora communities in Italy, Spain, the UK, and Germany all voted for Simion, while smaller ones in the Netherlands and Portugal voted for Dan. The biggest pro-Dan diaspora group was in Moldova. Simion has a history of advocating Romanian-Moldovan unification, which has led to his ban from Moldova.
Another big election was in Poland. On Sunday, the country held its first round, as Poland also follows a two-round runoff system like Romania. The runoff will take place on June 1.
Rafał Trzaskowski, from the ruling Civic Coalition, narrowly came in first, followed by Karol Nawrocki, supported by the Law and Justice Party (PiS).
PiS ruled the country from 2015-2023 and held the presidency for a decade. The party’s tenure in government was noted for attacks on abortion rights, the LGBT community, the courts, media freedom, and the rule of law generally. However, the tenure was also notable for more economically left policies, such as more support for parents and better funding for healthcare.
The President’s leading role in Poland, however, is in foreign policy. Current president Andrzej Duda notably took an essential role in the early stages of the Ukraine War, coordinating support for Ukraine. Nawrocki, on the other hand, opposes EU membership for Ukraine until it accepts responsibility for the genocide of Poles during WWII.
This is a particularly tense subject as parts of Western Ukraine were at one time Polish with significant Ukrainian minorities. In WWII, anti-Communist Ukrainian nationalist fighters such as the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) not only fought the Soviets but also committed widespread massacres of non-Ukrainian minorities, namely Jews and Poles. While Poland has been a strong supporter of Ukraine due to a shared distrust of Russia, the legacy of historical massacres and border disputes remains a painful wound for many.
Nawrocki himself is not pro-Russian, but he might signal a less pro-Ukraine policy than before. Additionally, he is against European federalisation and argues the need for Poland to strongly maintain its identity.
Finally, there was Portugal. Unlike the other two, Portugal was a parliamentary election, with parties competing for seats.
The centre-right AD alliance increased its seat count but failed to take control. But the real story came from other parties. The Populist Right Chega not only gained but is now tied with Partido Socialista (PS). Since the fall of fascism and the return of Portuguese democracy, the two main parties, PS and Partido Social Democrata (PSD), have dominated. PSD is now part of the AD alliance with Centro Democrático e Social—Partido Popular (CDS-PP).
As of now, PS is tied with Chega for second in terms of seats. However, diaspora votes have yet to come, which could potentially lead to Chega overtaking PS. Chega is relatively new, entering parliament in 2019. Due to Portugal’s history with fascism, many thought their ideas were too taboo to succeed. However, this has been proven wrong.
Portugal had an election last year that the AD alliance won but also failed to get a majority. They refused to work with Chega and said they wouldn’t either this election, clearly hoping for a majority. PS tolerated the government, allowing it to go through, but the government could not pass its agenda and was marred by a corruption scandal leading to new elections.
Nothing will likely change unless PS and AD agree to a grand coalition or the AD abandons its cordon sanitaire on Chega.
Australia’s Liberal-National coalition splits after election thrashing
Australia’s Liberal-National Coalition, often called the Coalition, is no longer in power. Following a disastrous loss in the general election, the Coalition received 43 seats to Labor’s over 90.
The Coalition dates back to 1922, when the Nationalist Party (predecessors to the Liberals) aligned with the Country Party (predecessors to the Nationals) to combat Labor. The Coalition was formed to establish a government. The first iteration of the Coalition was incredibly successful until 1929 when former Prime Minister Billy Hughes was kicked out of the Nationalist Party. He then managed to get several defections and killed the alliance.
The Coalition would rejoin and split a couple of times before, in 1949, the modern iteration was formed, when the Liberal Party and the Country Party would join together. The country would later become the National Country Party in the 1970s before dropping the country and eventually just becoming the Nationals. Despite small breaks in between, the Coalition remained dominant, governing ⅔ of the last century.
There were also splits at the state level, with the parties’ unity varying state by state, thanks to Australia’s federal system.
After a disastrous loss, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, announced that the Nationals would no longer coalition with the Liberals. This split means the Nationals are no longer part of the main opposition as the Liberals held more seats.
Additionally, the Liberals held a new leadership election as their old leader, Peter Dutton, lost his seat and resigned in disgrace. Many blame the Coalition’s election loss on his rhetoric and policies, which match those of Donald Trump, the controversial United States President. The Liberals’ new leader, Sussan Ley, promised to move the party back to the centre-right as Dutton’s tenure was marked by a rightward shift. He was from the right wing of the Liberals and moved the party right on issues such as migration and climate.
The Coalition has had issues in recent years. As part of the climate transition, the Labor government has pushed for investment in renewables. However, this was strongly opposed by Littleproud and the Nationals, who advocated for Nuclear in place. Australia has traditionally relied on coal. Now that it is shutting down coal mines as part of an energy transition, the Coalition has begun pushing for nuclear power as an alternative to renewables. However, most Liberal voters prefer renewables and stronger action regarding climate change. By taking a right-wing position on migration, the Liberals struggled across the country. However, while the Coalition took a beating in the election, almost all the seats lost were by the Liberals except for one, which the Nationals lost to an incumbent who defected from the Coalition in 2023.
As Dutton lost his own seat and the Liberals were humiliated, the Nationals boasted a much more substantial margin. This put tensions into the spotlight, and Littleproud announced that the Nationals would no longer join the Coalition. Among the sticking points were the $20 billion Regional Australia Future Fund, divestiture powers for supermarkets, universal mobile service and the controversial nuclear policy.
The Coalition still exists at the state level. Littleproud says he promised Ley that he would work to rebuild the relationship in the hope that the Coalition would be reformed for the next election. This is to say that the Coalition may come back. Littleproud said himself that he hopes the parties can reconcile in the future.
Despite only getting 3.6% of the vote, the Nationals have had an outsized influence in Australian politics because of the Coalition. As such, it’s unlikely this split will be permanent; rather, it’s just the Nationals making a statement to gain more concessions down the line.
Leave a Reply