How Călin Georgescu's TikTok presence rocked the Romanian election

From relative unknown three months ago to winning the first round of Romania's presidential elections, hard-right candidate Călin Georgescu's meteoric rise has stirred suspicions of interference and social media manipulation.

With the Constitutional Court ordering a recount of votes, TikTok faces a possible shutdown in Romania pending an investigation into its part in the first round of the presidential election on Nov. 24.

Georgescu's campaign leaned heavily on China-based ByteDance's social media app and researchers and politicians said the way the candidate's posts went so viral warranted investigation.

TikTok dismissed concerns about its role as "inaccurate and misleading" and Russia denies accusations of interference.

"There was a running joke in 2014 that our president was elected on Facebook. Now, there is a joke that he was almost elected on TikTok," popular Romanian YouTuber Silviu Istrate told Context.

TikTok bounce

According to Georgescu, he is not affiliated to any party and his campaign had zero budget and was staffed by volunteers, but the outsider candidate was able to harness TikTok to build a considerable online presence, reaching almost 300,000 followers.

TikTok is among the most popular social media apps in Romania, with 9 million users out of 19 million citizens.

Georgescu had been polling in low single-digits before an election focused on the cost of living in the country with the European Union's biggest share of people at risk of poverty.

But he represented an alternative to mainstream parties.

"The vote for him was an anti-system, revenge vote against our big political parties," said Istrate, adding that he does not contest the result, but rather "the way Georgescu rose to this kind of popularity overnight".

National Audiovisual Council Vice President Valentin-Alexandru Jucan said he believed TikTok's algorithms had amplified material favourable to a single candidate and it lacked transparency about who was sponsoring election content.

"It is categorically false to claim his account was treated differently to any other candidate," a TikTok spokesperson said in a statement, adding that when Romanian authorities flagged unmarked political content the platform "took action on those videos within 24 hours".

But some analysts pointed to a lack of transparency around TikTok's algorithm which is geared for engagement, meaning misinformation can rapidly gain traction.

"TikTok's algorithmic amplification of certain candidates, such as Călin Georgescu, without adequate oversight, raises concerns about fairness and transparency in the electoral process," said Cristina Vanberghen, visiting professor at the European University Institute.

Under the radar

Georgescu's shock win relative to his pre-election polling data indicated "inauthentic behaviour" or fake bot accounts, according to Berlin-based NGO Democracy Reporting International.

For example, an account supporting Georgescu @iamcalingeorgescu, created on Nov. 26, instantly gained 15,000 followers, suggesting "coordinated inauthentic behaviour or fake engagements", the non-profit said in a report.

Beyond bots, analysts also point to social media micro-influencers indirectly promoting Georgescu without marking their posts as paid advertising.

Paid political advertising is banned by TikTok. However, researchers at Bucharest-based Expert Forum found a majority of political content remained unmarked as such and was superficially vetted.

"They claim to be entertainment, but are doing political propaganda in plain sight," the group said in a policy brief.

Micro-influencers appeared to be quoting from a 'copy-paste' script that did not name the candidate, but used descriptions that he used to depict himself, such as "patriot" and "someone who cares about farmers", said Istrate.

He said a platform that links brands with a pool of micro-influencers who are paid to post and help to achieve a brand's "desired objectives", could have been used.

"The organisation that presented this post as a gig on this influencer discovery platform is completely nowhere to be found," said Catalina Goanta, associate professor researching social media influencers at Utrecht University, adding it made traceability harder, and deniability of involvement plausible.

Future-proofing

As Romania prepares for the second round of presidential elections on Dec. 8, Georgescu's shock win demonstrates the growing power of digital platforms to shape political campaigns, said analysts, and will prove a test for the European Union's new digital rules, which oblige big tech companies to take "risk mitigation measures for electoral processes".

The European Commission has been asked to investigate TikTok's compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into effect in February.

If the Commission suspects a breach it can open proceedings to look into TikTok's compliance with the DSA obligations.

"We are closely monitoring developments," a spokesperson from the European Commission said in an emailed statement.

If found in breach, TikTok faces of up to 6% of its global turnover, and could be banned from Europe altogether if there is a repeat offence.

Pending the investigation's outcome, there are lessons to be learned for future elections, according to researchers, who point to educational gaps and institutional weaknesses.

"It is a problem which could extend to the entire EU," said Vanberghen, especially if elections see "increased reliance on platforms with opaque algorithms that might inadvertently favour one candidate or party over another".

Social media bans are "not the solution", but she recommended educating voters about the impact of algorithms on their exposure to certain types of content.

She also called for additional regulations to safeguard democratic processes from potential interference from foreign-owned platforms.

"As AI (artificial intelligence) technology evolves, EU member states will need to implement guardrails to address the unique challenges posed by these new tools," she concluded.

This article was updated on Wednesday, December 4, 2024 at 9:54 GMT to correct a date to 2014 in paragraph 5.

(Reporting by Joanna Gill; Editing by Jon Hemming.)