View from London: Democracy's been cancelled in Romania – and the Free West

Democracy's been cancelled in Romania – and the Free West is as silent as the graveIt was about this time of year, 35 years ago, when I set off eastwards from Berlin, full of fear. I was seeking to get into Romania, then an iron Communist tyranny. I finally made it to the capital, Bucharest, as dusk fell on Christmas Eve. The city was by then gripped by a sort of madness, writes ‘The Daily Mail’ prominent observer Peter Hitchens.

I was warned to beware of snipers at the entrance to my hotel, and zigzagged ludicrously through the snow with a suitcase in one hand and a typewriter in the other. Nobody sniped, but later I sheltered under my bed while red tracer bullets flew by the window in the square outside.

It was more or less impossible to find out what was going on, though the city's hospitals were full of sad, wounded people, under third-rate Communist healthcare.I went because rumours had been spreading of severe discontent, which exploded on December 21, 1989. The country's Communist leader, Nicolae Ceausescu, was heckled during a speech.

This unthinkable act of bravery by the hecklers started an avalanche that took only four days to sweep the despot to his death - an ugly kangaroo court followed by a so-called 'execution'. This looked more like an assassination to me, when it was shown on Christmas Day on Bucharest TV.

The general reaction of Europe and the world was one of uncomplicated joy, as it always is when evil regimes fall (see Syria now).

But Romania has not been especially happy since. And I was shocked to learn last week that its latest presidential election had been cancelled. Yes, you read that right. Romania's Supreme Court has simply cancelled the election, because of a danger that the wrong person would win.

Let's simplify this. Calin Georgescu, who has said nice things about Vladimir Putin and is definitely not politically correct, did very well in the first round on November 24. As a result he was to be one of two candidates in the decisive second round, which should have taken place on December 8. Now the first round has been wiped from the record and the second round will never happen. Full new elections are promised, but can they now be fair?

I can see why many in Romania do not want Georgescu to win. He's not my kind of guy either. But that's the problem with democracy. You have to accept the outcome, or it is not democracy. And producing thin 'intelligence' claims of 'Russian intervention' really isn't enough, in a grown-up country, to halt a free poll.

Two things have struck me about this event. The first is that it happened at all. The second, equally important, has been the absence of protest from bodies who endlessly condemn rigged elections elsewhere. The EU Commission has, as far as I can find, avoided saying anything. A search for Nato condemnation also yielded no results.

There has been no sign of one of those 'Rose' or 'Orange' or 'Dignity' revolutions that erupt so spontaneously where the West is contesting election results that favour Moscow. Though I should point out, as a former revolutionary, that organising a spontaneous uprising takes a lot of planning, money and hard work.

The whole thing looks to me like good-old fashioned humbug, and those who have been silent about it should be ignored when they protest, in future, about suppressions of democracy that don't suit them.

In the meantime, it might be reasonable to worry about how Romanians might react to the cancellation of their democracy after only 35 years.

…NATO and EU don’t want any independent president in Romania. You have to accept the outcome, or it is not democracy. Then who is an ‘autocrat’? NATO is! European Union is!

And here is the explanation: