Romania’s Digital Governance: Oana Gheorghiu and Mihai Jurca in dialogue at the Edge Institute Summit

Dragoș Stanca:

Let’s talk a little about how Romania is governed from a digital point of view. It seems that the Pareto principle also applies to technology, in terms of digitalization: about 80% is related to legislation, mindset, political will, and only 20% to the actual execution, technologies, and so on.

We don’t have a talent problem in Romania, we don’t have a problem of a lack of a competitive private environment, we don’t have a problem of a lack of start-ups that want to take matters into their own hands, or NGOs that, as we have seen, many of them have contributed to digitalization. But we do have a problem with governance. We have a significant problem with governance, and I am gray enough to remember the frustrations from the e-Romania era, let alone the current frustrations in 2025.

The problem is that we can’t wait any longer. The only non-renewable resource we don’t have is time. And this time is eaten up by incompetence sometimes, by ill will at other times, perhaps by corruption here and there, but surely even the well-intentioned don’t always manage to move as we would like.

Sure, from the outside it is easier to comment, it is easier to criticize; from the inside it is a little more complicated. At this point, as the digital governance framework — which you can find on our website, on edgeinstitute.ro — emphasizes, we need, as the former president of Estonia said, responsibility at the highest level. We need coordination from the Prime Minister level or immediately in the next echelon.

We cannot afford to let ministers argue among themselves about digitalization. From the aforementioned report, made by colleagues from Digital Nation in Estonia, a report that we worked on seriously over the summer, we interviewed dozens of people from local public administration, and it gave us a scathing rating: 3.1 out of 10 regarding the digitalization of the public sector in Romania.

Maybe we need a new Snagov declaration, right? It’s been about 30 years since the Snagov declaration on NATO and the European Union. Above political interests, maybe now is the time to replace “NATO” with “digitalization” and “European Union” with “correct adoption of artificial intelligence”. I don’t know. But we have new people in the administration, we have people who came with good intentions.

Pink, black, gray or some other shade — what is it actually like, at a first assessment? Because, of course, we from the outside, as I was saying, it’s easy for us to be very critical, maybe we don’t see the good things that are happening in the administration. And I’m addressing both Oana Gheorghiu, who has a few days — I don’t know, three weeks already — of her mandate as deputy prime minister, and Mr. Jurca, with more seniority in local administration, but not at the national level. How do you see, very briefly, the work from the inside?

Is this how it seemed to us when we criticized from the outside?

Oana Gheorghiu:

Let me start. I can only say that I still wake up with enthusiasm and optimism in the morning, which means it’s good. What you see from the inside is different from what you see from the outside, I have to admit that. You find people you can work with, but there is also, at least in the area of ​​digitalization, a fragmentation and a lack of coordination. And if there’s one thing I hope to achieve in this mandate, it’s exactly this: to find a way to bring all the actors to the table and to start something much more strategic than has been achieved so far. But I’m optimistic, so it doesn’t seem so bleak to me.

Dragoș Stanca:

To clarify, I received from a lot of people on WhatsApp a print screen from the Official Gazette in which, in your attributions, digitalization was not mentioned. Everyone expected it to be. Is it just an error, a lack, a typo? Or is it included in efficiency or somewhere else?

Oana Gheorghiu:

I must admit that I did not read. I know that digitalization is in my mandate, but there were two decisions, I do not know which one you are referring to. One of them, which appeared, refers strictly to the area of ​​companies and was only the establishment of a committee. Regarding the mandate, I know that it is digitalization. But I will check again — if it is not there, we ask for it.

Mihai Jurca:

I correct, there is no problem.

Dragoș Stanca:

I try to be as optimistic as possible, although I do not always seem so. I understood that it is under efficiency — digitalization, efficiency, transparency. Mr. Jurca, a year or so ago I was in Oradea, at the IQ Digital Summit, a project that we organize together with colleagues from BCR, whom I greet, because I know they are watching this livestream, and you said some interesting things there, regarding the experience from Oradea. I find it interesting to recall a little, because it is also related to what President Ilves just said, namely that, regarding the success of digitalization in Oradea, there are several principles: working for citizens first and foremost, not for the institution — you mentioned it then — respect, meaning that they feel respected in their relationship with the local authority and, especially, the relationship with deadlines being met; that they must understand that there is a vision and that the orientation must always be pro-business, meaning that we should confuse the private environment as little as possible.

I find it interesting that Mr. President Hendrik Ilves mentioned some very important things from my point of view. One: legislation, more important than anything, and political agreement, more important than anything, beyond technology. Two: digital identity and interoperability, so that everyone feels part of this process.

Three: trust “by design” between the state and the citizen. I find this idea that even the authorities cannot use data to conduct investigations, for example — because this is a big problem of trust: “sir, does the secret service or the police have access to my data?” absolutely fascinating. And, of course, digital culture and education. In short, what can be applied to Bucharest? How optimistic can we be?

Mihai Jurca:

We have to be very optimistic, because it can be applied to everything. And the main, or the first argument that you mentioned — or that Mr. President mentioned — political will and the decision at the highest level are a first step. Without that, it’s complicated. And not only the decision is enough, but also the understanding of this process. Because the process refers to, or talks a lot about, digital tools and media, but it is, essentially, a process that changes a system of power in an organization.

Digitalization will always work with these mechanisms in an organization, no matter what it is — a country, a government or an NGO. Digitalization changes this relationship. And we must realize that, if we talk about digitalization, we need the greatest political support to do this, and then we will discuss what tools we use.

We must not take the discussion, at least in the first stage, to technologies and tools. Of course, we cannot talk about digitalization today without automation or artificial intelligence; it enters the conditional zone. But we must understand that we are talking about a change in the balance of power in a fairly large ecosystem. And this must be understood and pushed every day, with every project. Everything that was done in Estonia, was done in Ukraine — it was done in a political environment, in a democratic formula of governance — and I think we are in the same position and can do it equally.

The decision, commitment and understanding of the process are very important. From there on, the legislation — exactly as he said — whoever is going to deal with this issue needs prerogatives.

Dragoș Stanca:

From Tallinn to Ciugud, everywhere, an important element is consistency: not to change the digitalization strategy every time the political vision changes. In a democratic regime, it is more difficult to do this without pushing certain limits. I mentioned in my introduction perhaps the need for a political agreement, above electoral interests. Do you feel that such an agreement could be possible? Is such an agreement needed?

Oana Gheorghiu:

I think that there is already a political commitment through the government program. If we read it, all the parties in the current coalition have assumed this program, and it is quite clear and includes digitalization. I firmly believe that these things can be done, but we all have to sit down at the table. There must be — as the president said earlier — coordination.

That is missing. There is no command center where everything is gathered, checked, duplication is avoided, processes are harmonized, platforms are ensured to be interoperable. All of this can be done if we make the decision to centralize — even the decision itself to take inventory: what we have, what we keep, what is no longer good, what we change. I think these are strategic things that need to be put on paper and assumed as a strategy for at least the medium term, by everyone.

And I hope — as I listened to the president online, on the way to Cotroceni — that we have his support, because it is essential. As long as there is a decision and support at this level, it ensures that everyone is pulling in the same direction. And I think that all the actors involved at the institutional level — be it STS, or MIA, or other institutions with a role in digitalization — actually want the same thing. But it is harder for someone to assume the role of putting them together and coagulating things.

I will try to do this and, as I was saying, we are waiting for the president to be with us. On the one hand, it is important to put the citizen at the center for the first time and to talk about how we continue to develop this industry, so that the country benefits not only from digitalization itself — which we need — but also from software exports and the development of the sector.

Dragoș Stanca:

I think we have every reason to start being optimistic. Honestly, we were looking for a location around the city for this event and, at some point, we said: “Let’s also send a request to the Presidential Administration, it would be really cool to do it right at Cotroceni.” And the best part — fortunately — it happened.

We received a green light almost surprisingly. Congratulations to the colleagues who had the idea.
Well, I was referring to a political agreement beyond the coalition; I was hoping that we could bring the opposition to the table, because otherwise I think quite a lot would get blocked. Maybe I’m too dreamy. We can hope that we will have that government CEO, in the sense of chief information officer, and eventually a chief information officer at each ministry, as the Digital Nation report said and as the former president confirmed that it couldn’t be otherwise.
Can we? Do we have a legal basis to do this?

Oana Gheorghiu:

We are looking for such a person, for now at the cabinet level, if we manage to find the right person who wants to come under these conditions. I launched this request in the market and I think it can be done.

Dragoș Stanca:

We have a serious and unpleasant problem regarding trust. In society, in general, we are doing very poorly in the social trust index — somewhere at 15%. To make a comparison with Estonia, there it is around 63. We have a problem of trust between institutions and within institutions, we have this suspicion: “What will happen to our data?”

How do you think, from the perspective of government leadership, that we can start to improve, at least gradually, this trust index — between us as members of society and, especially, in the idea that digitalization is not something bad, but something good for citizens? Something that helps and better exposes potential problems of corruption or poor management.
Are there any thoughts or plans in this direction?

Oana Gheorghiu:

It’s too early to say anything concrete, because I only have three weeks, and in the first part I worked on a strategy related to companies. But I think that trust is built only through transparency and honesty. I think it’s time — and we intend to do this — to open a real dialogue with citizens, the business environment, NGOs and civil servants. I think they need to be included in this dialogue for the first time, because they are an unused resource. They understand a lot of things that we don’t see and that we can correct together.

And only through a transparent and honest dialogue — saying specifically what we can do in a short time, what can’t be done quickly, what depends on legislative changes — can we build trust. This kind of dialogue, which the government will open soon, we hope, will help increase trust.

On the other hand, we must be aware that this cannot be solved in a few months or a year. It’s a long process, in which each side has to invest a little: the citizens — a little trust, the government — a little openness. And we have to accept that not everyone loves us; it’s important to start from this idea. There will be many who criticize us, many who don’t understand what’s behind it, who don’t see the work and who think things are much simpler than they are. It’s absolutely normal. I’ve been on the other side of the barricade and I know what it’s like.

Dragoș Stanca:

I just want to say that if you at “Dăruiește Viață” didn’t build trust, I don’t know who did. People still donated money with the belief that you wouldn’t go with them to Dubai for the weekend.

Oana Gheorghiu:

We have to admit that it’s much easier to build trust in the NGO sector, where you have other tools and you can do things that, in turn, bring trust. When you do things, people see and you gain trust. We hope to succeed in this in the government sector as well.

On the other hand, this government doesn’t have the happiest context. We’re not in a situation where we come in and have the opportunity to invest and do things that can be seen immediately. It’s a government that needs to fix itself first.

Dragoș Stanca:

What was incubated as a kind of MVP in Oradea, in the relationship of trust with citizens, can it also be imported to Bucharest?

Mihai Jurca:

Everyone says — rightly so — that Bucharest is not Oradea. The answer is yes, with one condition: that we have time. Exactly as Oana said, trust cannot be built in three months, not even in two years.
It takes a long time for the level of trust and the depth there. It took over ten years there.
But we have to start doing what we say. And, speaking of the opposition, it is very important that a project of this kind be embraced or at least not be harshly criticized, sabotaged somehow. And that is about trust.

We can’t discuss the tools. That will be the job of those who will implement it, and we need to give them trust and confidence that they will do the right thing — that they will store the data in a manner that respects personal data rights, that they will monitor any access, just as is happening legitimately in Estonia.
There needs to be trust between the ruling and opposition parties on certain issues, and there needs to be a certain kind of language that doesn’t generate the lack of trust that we see today.

Dragoș Stanca:

We should probably all do the things that concern each of us — including those in the room, those who are watching us live — and take the idea of ​​digitalization to a level where there is no longer a debate about “is it good or not”, “is it necessary or not”.
We are still in a phase where there are voices that dispute that it would be a good idea. Given that we have serious vulnerabilities as a country, not having a well-developed digital infrastructure, and not living in a historical period of peace and stability — neither in the world nor in the region — there is probably a lot of work to be done here as well.

We also need the agency of change. We need to encourage people who may not have key positions now. My question would be: how can we identify them and how open are you to public-private cooperation, to accelerate this process? How difficult is it to get there?
I would be interested to know how many well-intentioned people we actually have, whom we can rely on in the state apparatus. We see that President Nicușor Dan has opened up — and we thank him — to the private sector and encourages us to participate, but we should also have open dialogue partners, in good faith and pro-national interest, not pro-personal interest.

Oana Gheorghiu:

I believe that nothing can be done alone. And the partnership between the government and civil society — NGOs, the business environment — is essential. We have already started discussions and met with several actors from the private sector during this period, precisely to try to better understand what is happening and, as I was saying, to identify people who would like to come along with the team and build.
I am convinced that this is the future: a permanent dialogue between the government and the private sector and a real and solid partnership, which has at its center our common interest, beyond the particular interests of one activity or another. I believe very strongly in this partnership and I do not think it can be done otherwise, especially in the field of digitalization. I do not believe that the state can do anything alone, just as the private sector cannot do anything alone. I believe that this is the future.

Dragoș Stanca:

Another delicate topic — and we will have a dedicated panel — is inclusion and the fact that we do not yet have, and there is a long way to go, the possibility of making everyone feel part of this process. More isolated communities, Romanians in the diaspora who feel cut off from their country, who have integrated digitally into the communities in which they live, but do not really have the possibility to do so in relation to Romania.
In this sense, what is your vision? From this point of view, it is early for concrete solutions, but I would at least be interested in the vision.

Oana Gheorghiu:

As an idea, we know that a large part of the population is difficult to digitize at the moment. There are many underdeveloped communities, where people cannot be integrated into the digital area so easily. But there are solutions for this: single centers at the level of city halls, perhaps partnerships with NGOs that would take this approach and have a dual role.
On the one hand, to solve the problem of digitization of the person and access to the digital area; on the other hand, to create interaction with people in communities. I think that digitization is an opportunity to open a dialogue with less developed areas and with people who currently do not have access.

Oana Gheorghiu:

Sure, it is a battle that we have to fight: we have to convince the city halls to do this, to create the unique centers where people can go to solve their problems. And for those who cannot travel, to find NGOs that can go to them, at home. But I think that these are just obstacles that we imagine and that should not stop us from thinking about this system.
I think that these are things that we will gradually encounter, as we advance in digitalization, and that we will address at the right time. We can imagine different scenarios now, but some of them will only be clarified as we go deeper.

Mihai Jurca:

I would add something else. I think there is an opportunity in the way the experience of a digital platform is built. There lies a very important component of inclusion. If we look at many people who navigate the digital environment quite well today — especially on social media platforms, even at advanced ages — we realize that they are, in fact, in an almost digital world.
We should think of the public ecosystem on a very intuitive user experience, close to what already exists as a habit in society. Sure, we won’t be able to pay taxes like the scroll on TikTok or Instagram, but there is an opportunity that we need to map as a reflex and integrate it into one platform or another. I think that helps a lot with inclusion.

Dragoș Stanca:

I also heard Mr. Bolojan’s statement. I also heard Mr. Nazare’s statements, who will come here a little later in a discussion on digitalization and collection. We hope to finally see concrete steps.
With the data you have now, Mr. Jurca, what can we look at with some optimism and what do you think is achievable within a reasonable time frame, or at least at the level of intention, from the discussions you are having in the government?

Mihai Jurca:

We need to create trust, and to give the feeling of trust we need to do more than promise. So I won’t risk giving you exact things like milestones, but work is being done in the ANAF area — and I see Mr. President here — on a project that is nearing completion and that will contribute greatly to the infrastructure.
What will happen in the coming years — and hence the reluctance to provide stages or milestones — is underground infrastructure. You won’t see much of it, but it’s necessary. Just like roads, it takes a lot of databases to be rewritten, connected, and deduplicated. There are many things that are not visible from the user’s perspective, but are absolutely necessary to move to the next level, to creating products for users.

When this “underground” infrastructure, if I may call it that, is completed — or largely completed — it can be accessed. This is where the private sector and civil society can already intervene. Based on a data infrastructure, products that we do not think about can be created, but which will benefit the population and, implicitly, the government.

Dragoș Stanca:

This approach with important things that are not visible is interesting. And here, again, I think communication is the key, because at this moment, in this building, we have a president who has explained very clearly to the people of Bucharest why the district heating network is needed, because otherwise the systemic problem cannot be solved.
Let’s digitalize the concept — maybe it will work.
Because we need to get closer to the conclusions, please help us convey to those present and to those who follow us online a few messages, ideas, things that you would like them to stay with on the topic of digital services in 2025.

Oana Gheorghiu:

I believe that Romania has everything it needs to succeed. We have a well-represented industry in the digital area. We have a good start to digitization — even if it is very fragmented — and we have something to build on. Coordination is needed, and I hope that I can at least manage to put that invisible brick in this coordination. I hope that we can also create the team I was talking about as soon as possible — this will help us move forward faster.

I also have the debureaucratization area in my portfolio, which is very much related to digitization. We want, before we digitize, to check the processes, to simplify. Because if we digitize chaos, we will have digitized chaos — and this is the first step, which will be difficult to see.

We are trying to work strategically, to stop doing things in a heuristic way, but this comes with distrust, which is difficult to combat.

So, what do we ask of you? A little trust, a little help. We are open to ideas. It helps us, even if we won’t be able to implement them all — we will have to select — but the fact that we don’t implement an idea doesn’t mean that we didn’t hear it or that we didn’t consider it good. Maybe now is not the time.

That’s what we can tell you and what we need. At this moment, I think we need more support and people in the team.

Dragoș Stanca:

I believe that civil society and people of good faith will come, as long as they find openness and feel that this effort is worthwhile.

Thank you also for the many questions and feedback sent in the form. I promise that we will forward them — not only the questions, but also the concrete proposals. Use the form, you have the QR-code on the screen.
Mr. Jurca, conclusions?

Mihai Jurca:

The conclusion is simple: we have a deputy prime minister who is in charge of digitalization, and that is very important. I am glad that Oana has all the support of me and my colleagues, and we will help with whatever we can. It is important that this exists, because this is the first signal.
We were initially discussing that there must be a coordinator. I understood — as a message for the room — that work that is not visible, but which is absolutely mandatory, is needed.
We understand very clearly that a decision and firm support are needed, and legislation that doubles this support for those who will be in charge. These people must have serious, legislative prerogatives to do this; otherwise it will not happen.

And there is something else clear: this perspective in which we put the citizen in the middle — not just declaratively. Because digitalization, at least from what I have seen at home and what I see here, is often done on an existing structure, which does not help. Rather, it serves the needs of the institution. Sometimes not even the institution’s, but simply duplicates an ecosystem in a digital form.
This paradigm needs to be changed, and I understand this. There are three very important things that I think are good to start the journey with. My colleagues and I will support all the steps that Oana will take in this direction.

Dragoș Stanca:

And, because we need a little optimism, as individuals: what digital services offered by the state do you use and are you satisfied with at the moment? Do you have an example, two?

Oana Gheorghiu:

I think I use SPV, but I passed it on to my partner because I don’t have time anymore. I don’t know what else I use. I definitely use it, but it doesn’t come to mind now. You tell me, Mihai, maybe I’ll remember it too.

Mihai Jurca:

I use the ANI platform for my wealth declaration — it’s mandatory and I took it on — and it’s a good experience. I also want to mention the team at MIA, who did a job whose results are not fully visible today. Those who dealt with digital identity — I used it to obtain my home address, having a digital ID.

There are a lot of services there that I haven’t used yet. I also use tax payment, but they weren’t familiar to me as being completely digitalized.
There is a team and a core there that can be built on. I wanted to mention that.

Dragoș Stanca: We confirm: work is being done at the MIA hub, and good work is being done — we hope it will get better and better. Therefore, the Digital Governance Summit becomes a platform that we hope to take forward. We hope to open this constructive dialogue with the government, the private sector, academia and civil society. And next year, at this time, let’s have a presentation with the “Top 5 successes in the digitalization of Romania”, as we did in 2025. Thank you once again for your time.

Mihai Jurca: Thank you!