What Changed the Course of the Romanian Elections and What Lessons Ukraine Should Learn from Them
The higher turnout in the Romanian elections has changed the myth that the entire Romanian diaspora is in favor of the radical right. It's just that the wealthier and more educated did not go to vote in the first round, but mobilized in the second round.
I am writing about property and education because these two factors, as well as the place of residence, were the main dividing line in Romania itself.
Huge mobilization and narrowing of the gap between candidates in the diaspora ensured victory for the mayor of Bucharest.
Urban voters, who are wealthier and better educated, voted for Dan. Rural voters, with lower incomes and less education, voted for Simion.
It was this distribution that made the election results predictable. The fact that the majority of voters live in cities and that the richer and more educated voters are oriented toward Europe made these election results clear even before the second round was held.
This is what gave me the unwavering faith to communicate between the two rounds the prospect of Dan's victory, despite the 20% gap when he lost to Simion in the first round.
The conclusion for Ukraine from these elections is simple. In order to prevent Russian propaganda from having a decisive influence on our post-war and all subsequent elections, we need to:
Develop the economy so that Ukrainians become wealthy.
Invest in education and promote lifelong learning.
Continue decentralization and increase the level of self-government capacity so that the quality of life in Ukrainian cities can steadily improve.
