Andrei Marga: Romanian political parties must be reformed. If the segregation between “pro-Europeans” and “sovereignists” continues, we will get nowhere

An interview on the results of the presidential elections in Romania, the divide in Romanian society, what a reform agenda for society could look like and the changing international order

Andrei Marga (source: Andrei Marga)

Vladimir Mitev, The Bridge of Friendship, 26 May 2025

Andrei Marga holds a degree in Philosophy and Sociology and a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on ‘The Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School’ (Herbert Marcuse). He specialised in contemporary philosophy in Germany and the US. Professor of contemporary philosophy and general logic, Andrei Marga was the longest-serving rector of Babeș-Bolyai University (1993-2004 and 2008-2012), Minister of National Education in the Ciorbea, Vasile and Isărescu governments, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Ponta1 government, and President of the Romanian Cultural Institute.

He was elected to the leadership of international organisations and institutions (European University Association, United Nations University in Tokyo; CEPES-UNESCO, Magna Charta Observatory, etc.) and was appointed consultant to cultural and academic institutions in China, the Vatican, Germany, Hungary and Austria. He was the most distinguished Romanian rector in the leadership of international organisations. He has taught courses and seminars as a visiting professor at the Universities of Munich (LMU), Vienna, Montpellier (‘Paul Valéry’), Jerusalem (Hebrew University), and Bucharest.

Mr. Marga, if I may begin with this. The presidential elections are over. The winner is clear. You are very familiar with international relations, having been foreign minister. Can you put Nicuşor Dan's victory and George Simion's defeat in an international context?

Andrei Marga: There is a lot to say, but I would start with these elections. Unfortunately, they have a history that raises many questions.

These elections were designed by the leaders of two parties – the PSD and the PNL – as a way of preventing any political alternative and consolidating the power of the two parties for ten years. What I am saying is based on documents.

The elections were postponed from the date on which they were supposed to be held.

I am referring to the presidential elections. They were supposed to take place in the autumn of 2024. However, the elections were postponed, which meant, among other things, that the former president, whose term had long since ended but who was fighting tooth and nail for an influential role, had to be forcibly removed from Cotroceni.

Then something else happened that is not done in a democracy that respects itself – a merging of elections. Although the European Commission had specified that the European Parliament elections should not be merged with local elections, the European Parliament elections were forcibly merged with local elections to prevent the opposition from winning.

Another embarrassing moment was the illegal cancellation of the first round of the presidential elections on 24 November 2025, after they had been validated by the Constitutional Court. The cancellation sparked much debate. Rightly so, because it is neither legal nor traditional to cancel elections because those who decide do not like the winner.

Then a false propaganda alternative was concocted, centred on the opposition between ‘pro-Europeans’ and “isolationists”, ‘anti-Europeans’, ‘anti-Westerners’, etc. This is a distinction which, in my opinion and in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of mature Romanians, does not hold water. There is no ‘anti-European’ movement in Romania, just as there is none in Bulgaria or any other country. But this sharp, harsh, and clearly demagogic and erroneous distinction was used.

It is logical that when the alternative is not true, nothing conclusive can result. And so we have arrived at the ‘winner’ we have. Romania has thus gone through its fifth presidential election with increasingly unprepared candidates, in which the least prepared candidate ultimately wins. Unfortunately, instead of bringing together genuine, trustworthy and responsible personalities, the presidential race in Romania has deteriorated over the years.

I am not discussing a fact that occurred in the final round of the presidential elections. Namely, that many of our fellow citizens complained that they were threatened with dismissal from their jobs if they did not vote for a certain candidate.

Finally, according to all the rules of statistics, a candidate who received 41% of the votes in the first round cannot easily be overtaken by one with 21% of the votes. If the elections are fair! However, in these elections, the rules of statistics were violated. How? I will give you an example that is emblematic: in one village, in the first round, which, as we know, measures voters' recognition of the value of the candidates, the candidate of the self-styled “pro-European” coalition received 12 (twelve) votes. In the second round, in this village, the ‘official’ candidate received 2,400 (two thousand four hundred) votes, even though the village has a small population. Absurd! And this absurdity was repeated in many villages and towns across the country.

But to sum up, the presidential elections in Romania in 2025 are, in my opinion, reprehensible and unfortunate. They should be judged, as you suggest, in an international context.

Taking all the data into account, my opinion is that the presidential elections do not change Romania's position in any way. Romania is a member of the European Union, it is part of the North Atlantic Alliance, like Bulgaria and other countries. Of course, there are no changes here.

If we are to discuss this more broadly, then it must be said that, unfortunately, in Romania, not even during the election campaign, was any work done to develop Romania's positions in the international context and discuss them with citizens. Bearing in mind that the world is not limited to Europe, and Europe is not limited to the European Union! And that we live in a changing world! And that, naturally, a country develops relations in a sovereign manner, according to its interests, with different countries.

To be clear, when I was Minister of Foreign Affairs, I chose to use the opportunities and advantages of Romania's membership of the European Union and NATO. This can be seen in what we decided and did. But at the same time, I have advocated normalising Romania's relations with China, Russia, Turkey and other countries on different continents. I have always believed that Romania should finally develop a foreign policy that takes into account all these global coordinates and, above all, the changing world.

It is well known that Romania has attached itself almost dogmatically to Joe Biden's international policy line. But we can clearly see that the new President of the United States, the Republicans, rightly, in my opinion, have a different foreign policy line. Romania would do well – and this is one of my recommendations – to quickly align itself with the Republican line represented by President Donald Trump in America, for one very simple reason: the world is changing in relation to everything that President Joe Biden has committed to, and, thanks to his influence, the European Union has also unwisely committed itself. And I believe that Romania should be sensitive to this change.

In this area of foreign policy, the two candidates in the presidential final had their own orientations. George Simion was more in tune with the changes in the world. And, of course, with the aspirations of citizens to escape from a political regime that has led Romania into the crises of today.

What changes would have taken place in Romania's foreign policy if George Simion had become president?

Andrei Marga: It would not have meant leaving the European Union, as has been said! As you well know, there is a lot of propaganda in election campaigns. In Romania, as I have shown, there was excessive propaganda, beyond the facts, based on a false alternative. No one wanted to take Romania out of the European Union or NATO. And I repeat, once again, there is no movement in Romania calling for withdrawal from the European Union, NATO or anything else. These objectives do not exist.

So Romania would not have changed its affiliations in international politics, whether George Simion came to power or not. Now even those who attacked him on this issue admit that it was false.

Two proposals were specific, as George Simion stated. Let us move towards more direct, broader cooperation with the United States of America, specifically with Donald Trump's Republican administration. And let us use the opportunities offered by the European Union for the development, including economic development, of Romania for the benefit of the country's population.

Let's be honest: Romania is still not making the most of the opportunities offered by the European Union – I myself raised this issue at his level back in 2012. This is due to the passivity, lack of initiative and incompetence of decision-makers in the Romanian administration.

If the goal was for Romania to be sufficiently emancipated, for its elites to make better use of European opportunities, but also to have greater independence in foreign policy, how do you view George Simeon's behaviour during the campaign? He relied on a kind of revenge, sometimes using very aggressive language against his opponents, including Nicușor Dan. If the aim was really to change the power configuration in Romania, why didn't we have a softer, more intelligent, more balanced president?

Andrei Marga: In my opinion, one of the shortcomings of the elections was that, unfortunately, none of the candidates in the final round had a real programme. Lists of objectives are not programmes. Let's be clear, what candidates in Romania usually present as programmes are just ideas taken from the atmosphere. A political programme is something else.

Furthermore, neither of the two candidates was supposed to run in the presidential elections. One did not want to run, and the other was, as far as we know, guided by forces that remain obscure. Those who had prepared in advance to run for president were those who participated in the first round, i.e. on 24 November 2024. Many of them were, of course, obvious amateurs, but a few had prepared at length and had a programme. That, however, is another discussion.

I cannot say how the two finalists related to each other. They must be asked. Unfortunately, however, the election campaign in Romania did not address the major, difficult issues of broad interest to citizens. Superficial as it was, the campaign took declared political affinities as a criterion, instead of examining the candidates' abilities to perform public roles. One would have expected the mayor of the capital to have a grasp of the issues – this was not the case, because, as even the political forces that propelled him to power admit, he was a mayor without results. He said he could learn. Moreover, rhetorical divisions were encouraged after two rigid fronts were established by the current state ‘officials’: the so-called ‘pro-European’ front and the so-called ‘isolationist’ front. As I have already said, this is a false alternative!

Personally, I have been in four governments that have brought Romania into the European Union. As Minister of National Education, I also closed the first chapter in Romania's negotiations with the European Union - the chapter on ‘Education and Vocational Training’. I was involved in all the moments of ‘Romania's Europeanisation’ at that time. But I must say that those who now claim to be ‘pro-European’ – I say this very directly, but elegantly, I hope – have no contribution and no merit whatsoever in Europeanisation. Some, as is easy to see, do not even know what it means to be ‘pro-European’ or ‘anti-European’. The reality is completely different from what was presented in the official propaganda of the recent presidential elections in Romania.

You rightly pointed out that the debates were rigid and the candidates' exchanges harsh. That is true. The culture of debate is ignored, or at least always betrayed by the ‘officials’ who govern Romania today.

Romania now urgently needs a public discussion of its problems and quick solutions to serious issues. At present, Romania's indicators are absolutely dramatic: the economy is being pushed, as economists say, towards junk status; people are living on foreign loans; the country's debt is the highest in its history; its democratic system is in a sorry state, on the verge of dictatorship; no institution is functioning as it should; Romania is the country with the highest emigration of citizens in peacetime; today, unfortunately, it is the European champion in terms of the lowest consumption of books per capita and functional illiteracy.

Not to mention the proportion of poor people, which is rising to 32-35%, which, as far as I know, is a European record. Romania must discuss these issues urgently. Romania is a country with potential and great possibilities, but it remains a prisoner of poor administration. This issue should have been raised during the campaign. It was not, but let us hope that it will be in the future. And now, after the campaign, we can clearly see the painful paradox that is unfolding. During the campaign, a coalition was cobbled together of the parties that led Romania into these crises, and all of these parties now want to remain in government.

However, in a truly democratic system, an alternative to the government should come without delay. We can clearly see that the desire and the great pressure today, in the initial negotiations, is for all those parties that have led Romania into an unprecedentedly difficult situation in its history to govern.

This will not work because the problems are difficult and the discontent is great. Personally, I am concerned about the discontent of my fellow citizens, which remains, quite rightly, widespread.

Can you say more about your expectations regarding this dynamic between the ‘pro-European’ and ‘sovereignist’ forces? What do you expect to happen, given that we have 5,300,000 voters for the sovereignist sector?

It is clear that neither Romania nor any other country can be governed without integrating the population democratically. The reasonable measure would be to open up the issues to honest public debate and cooperation on solutions within society. To be clear, in today's Romanian society there are three problems that are more serious than the others and need to be resolved.

The first stems from the fact that the governments of recent decades have hired new people in the public sector and bloated the administrative apparatus in order to satisfy the interests of various groups and collect their votes. This has led to a situation where poorly qualified people make decisions, and their wrong decisions have serious consequences. There has been a widespread reversal of the merit-based hierarchy in society. That is why I said simply, years ago, borrowing a theory from international circulation, that we had entered a situation of ‘stupidocracy’. I even translated the term into Romanian and said that Romania is governed by a ‘stupidocracy’, even if it doesn't sound very elegant – which has flooded all its institutions. This administrative, political and cultural degradation, however we want to characterise it, can now be observed in every institution of every kind, from the economy to universities and academies, throughout the country. Too few qualified people are making the current economic, legal, social and other decisions in Romania.

Secondly, there is corruption in Romania which, unfortunately, has become commonplace for too many people. Corruption is more widespread than ever. We cannot move forward with this. With this corruption, Romania is once again heading for disaster. The fight against corruption has been waged, but it has been waged under the leadership of people who owe their positions to corruption, so that the “fight against corruption” in Romania has led to even greater corruption.

And finally, I would like to quote one of Romania's famous doctors, George Șerban, who now lives abroad. In Romania, lying has become widespread. People lie constantly, and it is becoming increasingly noticeable, especially among ‘officials’ and their propaganda. As I said earlier, the parties that led to all this – the reversal of the hierarchy of values and the cultivation of people ill-prepared for public office, corruption, lying – want to rule Romania again. This is risky because these problems have not been solved and it would just be another falsification of the situation.

It would be reasonable now to try, with all our might, to return to honest, qualified administration. To an administration that calls a spade a spade, that speaks the truth about the major shortcomings in society. Namely, stupidity, corruption and the spread of lies.

How do you expect these negotiations between different types of elites to take place if there is such strong polarisation in society? The moment you open a door or a window to your opponent, you are seen as a traitor to your own cause. So how can this be achieved if society is divided in two?

Andrei Marga: Yes, that is a good question. My opinion is that at this moment, when the major shortcomings are very clear, it is clear that the population has rejected the parties considered ‘classic’: none of the candidates of the classic parties, liberal or social-democratic, made it to the final round. Given this, it is clear that a clean-up in Romania can only be achieved if these parties undergo massive change. Let me be blunt: with their current leadership, there is no way forward. It is not because we dislike one person or another; they are all citizens, after all. But there is no way forward.

A change in the parties, including at the leadership level, will be necessary. Otherwise, it will not work. Parties must be more than just associations of interests. Respectable parties are something else. Parties must organise themselves and be able to develop policies. A reconstruction of political institutions must begin, starting with the parties.

It is not possible to clean up Romania today without questioning the training and attitude of prosecutors and judges. The way the country's law enforcement agencies presented themselves in the 2024-2025 elections clearly shows that the democratic rule of law has serious shortcomings here. Democracy is not possible without respect for the law and its cultivation.

Similarly, public life in Romania must be freed from the interference of the secret services. Even in elections, many people rightly complain that voting is pointless as long as the counting of votes and the final results are controlled by the secret services, apparently only electronically, and therefore technically. Unfortunately, this control is extensive.

This is how I see a comeback, a way out of the problems that I have mentioned, at least in part. A way out of the crises in society and a way to get the citizens' energy moving again.

If we move forward, as we have already begun to do, obviously outside the real problems of the country, the ‘winner’ of the presidential final, with the segregation of citizens - some ‘pro-European’, others ‘isolationist’ - will get us nowhere. I hope that this stupidity, which creates a rift in society, will be abandoned. Everyone knows that the Romanian presidency should at least be aware and responsible. If segregation is not eliminated from Romanian life, nothing can be done. I hope, once again, that people realise this.

You probably noticed that on election night, Nicușor Dan himself spoke about the need to reform the parties. But he did not specify how to do this. And I wanted to ask you what Nicușor Dan can do to achieve what you are talking about - a renewal of the parties and all the political elites in the country?

Andrei Marga: I don't know how he sees it. Personally, I have no relationship with him. But in the administration of the country, we need people who have institutional culture, culture in political relations, in domestic and international political relations, deserving people, foreigners, but not involved in the widespread corruption in society. The solutions are not at all mysterious and could be adopted.

What matters now is for Romania to move away from the idea that a person who has won school competitions is capable of solving society's problems. Or that a haiduc style of politics, in which everything depends on one person, still works!

And Romania, in my opinion, needs an urgent public debate to identify the voices that are proposing meaningful solutions. Those voices should be called upon to make decisions. Put simply, Romania needs to be democratised in depth so that we can pull it out of the crises it is currently facing.

Returning to the ‘sovereignist’ thinking on foreign policy, I have noticed a significant divide on the subject of Ukraine. That is, there is this opinion that Ukraine must be supported and that the western border should be Ukraine's border with Russia.

But from what I understand, there is also another opinion – that Romania could somehow accept interaction with Russia? Can you clarify how sovereignists think about Ukraine? How do they imagine Romania's interests with regard to Ukraine?

Andrei Marga: I cannot speak for others. There are many of them, and they are diverse. However, I would say outright that we should not give in to the prejudice that Europe and the world now need new ‘iron curtains.’ That would be a tragic mistake! It is also a mistake to believe that any country, whatever it may be, is fighting for Europe and ‘European values’ on behalf of others. No way!

The war in Ukraine has caused what the best and most honest American, German and French historians have accurately identified, and there is no point in deviating from the historical truth. It is easy to see that the continuous effort to stray from historical truth only prolongs the war, causes massive destruction of property and unnecessary loss of life.

Historical landmarks are at stake in the discussion about Ukraine, and they should not be neglected. If you like, I can quickly give you a few examples to illustrate my point of view.

The most important Romanian novelist, Liviu Rebreanu, former undersecretary of state in the government of Iuliu Maniu, said in the 1930s, when the allergy to Russia was already prevalent: Let's see what problems we have with Russia, let's solve them and put an end to them, so that the Russians are no longer worried that Romania has options against them, and the Romanians are no longer worried that Russia wants to occupy them. Personally, I think Liviu Rebreanu was right.

And I say this too. I say it for an additional reason: the ‘Russian threat’ is always used propagandistically to solve all kinds of domestic political problems. More specifically, to further the careers of all kinds of profiteers! However, this does not work for the countries involved or for us, the ordinary citizens.

Of course, we know from history that powers and superpowers are not angels, that human nature has its flaws. We all know that. There is no need to theorise about this today. But the mission of diplomacy is to resolve difficulties. Conflict does not solve anything and is not for qualified and mature people.

With regard to Ukraine, to be clear, I cooperated very well as rector with universities in Odessa and Kyiv, and I visited Ukraine many times. I took many actions as Romania's Minister of National Education and was appointed by the Romanian government as co-chair of the Romanian-Ukrainian cooperation commission at the time, the other co-chair being the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs in President Kuchma's administration. We developed a project to reorganise the University of Chernivtsi into a four-language institution – Ukrainian, Romanian, German and Hebrew, in keeping with the cultural tradition of the region – which at one point had a chance of being implemented. I was then delegated by the European Commission to launch European university programmes in Kyiv. It is important that we all develop freely in this region – that has always been my conviction.

The discussion on the situation in Ukraine clearly needs to be broadened as much as possible. There are too many voices, now also ‘official’ ones, with narrow and erroneous perspectives. I have sought to promote broadening in public interventions, and one of my recent books, Pacea astăzi (Peace Today, Tribuna Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, 2024) contains my interventions and my conception.

I make no secret here that I share what the Donald Trump administration had in mind – namely, to pursue the discussion on Ukraine to the end with a view to finding a lasting solution to the situation. To be very clear, we are in Eastern Europe and, moreover, we are in post-World War II Europe, without any security treaties. The First World War ended with treaties, the Second with very few. The Second World War ended, as we know, with the Treaty of Paris (1947), which was a peace treaty. However, a treaty to regulate the issues left over after the war, including the difficult issue of borders, which had been dramatically disrupted by the actors of the world war, was never adopted. There are understandings, agreements, etc., signed later, as we well know. There are the decisions taken within the Soviet Union under Khrushchev regarding the transfer of the administration of Crimea to Ukraine. There are agreements from the break-up of the USSR, such as the Budapest Memorandum (1994). But these are not treaties, and some have not even been ratified.

Above all, however, it must be said that the issue of territories will have to be settled one day, because, whether we like it or not, this is where many difficulties and even problems arise. The territorial issue must be resolved calmly, with mutual understanding, but it must be resolved.

A German president once made the profound observation that after the Second World War, no representative of any state had a mandate to discuss this issue. I would add one more argument. If we look at the treaties concluded by the Federal Republic of Germany under the Brandt government with Poland and Czechoslovakia, we see that they state that the two sides recognise the borders until a “final” settlement is reached. This has not happened. The emergence of the European Union has, of course, changed the facts of the matter, but it cannot sidestep it.

Let us note, just as an example, that not even the abolition of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact has been carried through to the end. I say it again: only a peaceful settlement, reached by mature people who know and understand history, can resolve the territorial issue in a lasting manner.

So, to be clear, the issue of Ukraine goes beyond the debate between ‘pro-Europeans’ and ‘sovereignists’, even if some people confuse the two. It is part of a broader discussion about the legal situation after the Second World War.

International law, which is often invoked, is treaty law.

Treaties ratified by representative parliaments establish things in accordance with the law. Then there are many agreements, which are very welcome and should be welcomed, but they are something else.

In short, this was also my much-discussed statement on 16 December 2022 in Alba Iulia, when I said that borders must be regulated. I have reiterated this statement. It remains completely valid, no one has been able to overturn it, and the evolution of the current conflict will confirm my point of view. Not to take advantage of anyone, not to punish, that is not what is at stake here. But if we want lasting peace in Europe, then we must settle this issue on the basis of accurately written history.

Okay. You have said several times that you are relying in some way on the current Republican administration in the United States. But how great is this administration's ambition towards our region? For example, aren't American investments much lower than Western European investments in our area?

Or, perhaps in other respects, the fact that Donald Trump Jr. came to Bucharest did not change much. He did not offer anything particularly new. And there are many signs that the current Republican administration may even reduce the number of American troops in Romania. So how great is the ambition, how much, in fact, can our region rely on the American Republicans?

Andrei Marga: I can't say, I don't know how much it can rely on them, but I can say that I welcomed and welcome the fact that at this moment, with the Donald Trump administration, there is a shift in international politics towards dialogue and cooperation between superpowers, as opposed to Joe Biden's risky approach.

Of course, the United States is best placed to make this change, which consists of an understanding between the three superpowers. It is not convenient when only certain people around the world understand each other, but that is the situation. To be as clear as possible, if Joe Biden's approach had gone ahead, we would have been heading towards a large-scale war, which is the ultimate tragedy, if you will. I do not know exactly what the Republican administration has in mind for one region or another.

We can analyse, we can have opinions, we can speculate, but from my point of view, the problem that is being solved by the administration's options so far is the avoidance of a large-scale war. America has an economy that may or may not be interested in a particular region. It is most likely interested if that region promises to be a source of economic profitability.

In today's economic terms, it would be desirable for Romania to have a strong American investment presence. I am convinced that this can come with time, but for now we are only at the beginning. The new Republican administration has only been in office for a few months, but it is announcing changes that are only just beginning. Such a process takes time.

From my point of view, since we are discussing Ukraine and peace, it is important to reach an understanding between the superpowers. If there is no understanding at the level of the superpowers, then we will all suffer the consequences.

I would like to ask you about Romania in the Central and South-Eastern European region. That is, the former countries of the Eastern Bloc. We see that Romania has a large Hungarian population, so relations with Hungary seem to be very good. On the other hand, Romania has recently been developing very active relations with Poland. And even relations with Bulgaria are improving somewhat. With your thinking as an intellectual and former foreign minister, what should we expect in the current international configuration when it comes to Romania's relations in the region? How long will Romania remain focused on being a kind of Latin island in Southeastern Europe? And to what extent will Romania and Romanians find an interest in connecting with Central and South-Eastern Europe?

Andrei Marga: Yes, that's a good question. Because, indeed, Romania, in its current situation with its diplomacy in tatters, is always looking beyond its neighbours. It always wants to contact America, it wants to contact France, it wants to contact Germany and so on.

Of course, these are naturally established world powers and many things depend on their decisions, including the fate of Romanians and Romania. Especially since Romania currently has around six million emigrants in various countries in Europe and on the American continent, and more recently in Asia.

But Romania's greatest urgency is to get its own economy moving again. Romania has resources, but unfortunately it does not exploit them and does not make the most of them. Romania has potential, which, unfortunately, is not being exploited enough, but it must get its economy in order.

It will not be able to do so without the cooperation of each of its neighbours. So, as things stand, Romania depends on cooperation with its neighbouring countries. As far as I know, they would also benefit from cooperation with Romania. It is well known that Romania has this problem of economic development, which is currently exacerbated by its debt of over 205 billion euros, which is a large amount for the country.

Furthermore, Romania has an Eastern Latin character. We know this very well. I would just add, as a former Minister of National Education, that my country should continue today what we strengthened back then, namely the cultivation of the Latin language, which, to their credit, is now more prominent in neighbouring countries.

Looking at things more broadly, I believe that Romania would benefit enormously from developing its democracy. And for Romania, the key today is further democratisation – democratisation by people who know what it is all about and who know how to run their own country properly.

It is said that Bulgarians, Serbs, Hungarians and anyone else feel at home here. This is natural, as many were born here in Romania and therefore feel at home. In any case, economic development, democratisation and cultural affirmation are essential for Romania to play a major role in this context of neighbourliness.

Okay, but doesn't better cooperation also depend on better relations with Central and South-Eastern Europe... and not so much on the sovereignist channel... I mean, for example, you know that Bulgarian sovereignists are members of a European family of German sovereignists. While Romanian sovereignists are more aligned with the Poles and Italians. So our forms of sovereignty don't match. And perhaps it's up to the ‘Europeanists’ to collaborate...

Andrei Marga: We use the term ‘sovereignists’, but we should ask ourselves what we mean by it. I would agree with what is stated in the Constitution. I am convinced that the same provisions apply to national sovereignty in Bulgaria, Romania, Germany and France.

Namely, that each state is sovereign. I always quote, I admit, the theory from the Sorbonne, the French theory, with one of the most important European thinkers, Pierre Mannent, who says clearly in his text that democracy is only possible under conditions of national sovereignty.

So, to put it simply, we must defend sovereignty because it is a prerequisite for democracy. Moreover, it is also a prerequisite for development.

Sovereignty is associated with the image of being “isolationist”. Not at all, it is an unfounded cliché! The so-called ‘sovereignists’ are organising themselves at the continental level – of course in reaction to Brussels bureaucracy. And this bureaucracy, like any bureaucracy, reacts simplistically by spreading clichés and stigmatising citizens.

But, I repeat, on the one hand, democracy and development are not possible without sovereignty. On the other hand, no reasonable country demands to isolate itself from others. Isolation is no longer possible. After the era of globalisation, it is clearly no longer possible. So I would not view things so harshly.

The fact that some prefer certain ‘sovereignists’ from certain countries and others have different ‘sovereignists’ in mind should not be alarming. It is a discussion. What seems essential to me is a completely different aspect of the realities we are experiencing.

To put it more precisely, my thesis is that we are now at the historical end of the political line set by Karl Popper, astonishingly taken up by Joe Biden and brought into our present by Ursula von der Leyen. It is the line according to which there are two blocs in the world, one of ‘democracy’ and the other of “authoritarianism”, and that we should engage in a ‘struggle’ under the umbrella of globalism.

Well, this simplistic scheme does not hold water for many reasons. The first is that there is no even plausible analysis of the current state of the world – not even in political terms. There are many other arguments that show how flawed this scheme is, but it would take too long to discuss them here.

I am well aware of Karl Popper's philosophy, and I know what Joe Biden's thinking was in foreign policy. I was amazed that, for example, the American president could use American resources – an astonishing tradition of ‘democracy as a way of life’ with John Dewey, which is the tradition of American democracies. But Joe Biden did not use it, resorting instead to the globalist improvisations of Karl Popper, whom he did not even know.

I believe that this line needs to be changed. That is why I welcomed Donald Trump's arrival in the White House, with his policy based on global understanding, primarily to avoid war.

We are still in the midst of friction between these two lines. But the future, in my opinion, belongs to the line focused on democratisation and sovereignty in constitutional terms. No constitution in Europe says that the existing state is not sovereign. This is the case in France, in Germany, in our country, in Bulgaria, and everywhere else.

In this evolving international situation, how can Romania grow in the region and internationally? Because it seems to me that there is an awareness in Romania that Romania is a relatively large state with certain significant resources. But there is also dissatisfaction with Romania's current international role and its role in the European Union as well.

Andrei Marga: I said along the way that Romania must solve its internal problems. I highlighted three problems: economic development, democratisation and cultural creativity. These must be solved.

As for the more technical side of international participation, Romania must once again make room in its decision-making for people who know what they are talking about and have an up-to-date view of the world, as well as knowledge of international relations. Those who are currently in decision-making positions are not knowledgeable, have outdated views and are not skilled in these relations. They are mere functionaries and activists. Romania's foreign policy is currently dominated by a bureaucratic and activist mentality. This is the tune that those in power are playing, and this is the tune that is being played. However, foreign policy must be dynamic and innovative.

We can also discuss the European Union here. I am proud to have written more than anyone else in contemporary Romanian culture about a united Europe. Among other things, I have written two books – The Philosophy of European Unification (2003) and The Destiny of Europe (2011), which anticipated the current European crisis. To be concise, the European Union will either rebuild itself or lose. It will either rebuild its institutions or be marginalised after being pushed into a situation where there will be discontent among the states. If it does not make changes at the level of its leadership and its conception of the current world, the European Union will be pushed into a secondary position, discontent will grow and it will once again become a kind of common market.

However, the European Union project is different. To put it simply, we must return to the founders' project and relaunch the European Union as a ‘Europe of nations’. Otherwise, Europe will not count in the concert of the three forces that are currently on the world stage – the United States, China and Russia. Without rapid changes in leadership, organisation and policies, the European Union will lose even its current relevance.