QUO VADIS MOLDOVA AFTER REPEATED PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS?
COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 29 Aug 2009
Moldova is a fragile nation with a quasi-democratic political system. The democratic reforms were partial successful in this country since the political regime was changed many times. Under umbrella of democracy, the political system is still facing challenges of communism, quasi-democracy and illusion of choice. For the last couple of years, the communism in Moldova has preparing a strong partnership with Moscow on Transnistrian conflict resolution, energy sector and trade.
Democratic regime (1992-2001) instituted the process of European Integration for further membership of the European Union. Since 2001, when the communists won the parliamentary elections, Moldova was placed in the most crucial situation. The nation is facing a dilemma between to belong to Europe (having common roots with Romanians) or to keep and promote its relations with Moscow and former Soviet Union despite of European perspectives.
The communist party had chosen a way in the direction of Russian politics and interests, losing the biggest chance of nation to become a member of the EU conceivably after Romania and Bulgaria. The accelerated partnership with Russia pushed back Moldova in the USSR times. The economy and social sector faced many challenges and the society was not prepared for those radical changes. For instance, the system of medical assurance faced the increase of deficiency of the medical assistance.
In the fact, social programs did not fit the basic needs and expectations of population. The number of migrated population overseas was enlarged considerable, creating a deficit of labor force. The speedy privatization of national enterprises and holdings listed with stumpy prices made a gap in the national economy, rising budget deficit and cutting the capital-spending portion of the budget for education, roads, medicine and infrastructure. The prices for food, electricity and gas increased considerable. The communist regime was fail with its promises to increase quality of life. Despite of this, the communist party had continued to presume in the prosperity of nation, climbing new hills of promises.
Following the parliamentary election, with 49.48% of the votes, the Communist Party won again in April of 2009. The opposition leaders have protested against the results, declaring it fraudulent. The opposition have demanded a repeated parliamentary election. The crucial events of April 2009, followed as a protest against the fraudulent election, have changed the modern history of Moldova.
The peaceful demonstration of young people in the center of capital were transformed by agents provocateurs in couple of the hours in violent attacks against communist dictatorship established under umbrella of quasi-democracy in Moldova in the last couple of years. An incredible dreadful scenario was ruled by “someone” to conclude finally that Moldova faced a coup d’état, attempting to its sovereignty. The opposition has accused the government of organization and supervision the violent protests. The communist party has accused Romania and opposition for coup d’état.
Beyond of this, three young men have died (under ambiguous violent circumstances) and police has abused hundreds of arrested young people throughout demonstrations, including women, applying torture and violence in different forms in the prison. Moldova faced one more time, after Stalinism epoch, the atrocities of communist regime, even in the quasi-democratic society, on the common border with NATO and the EU. The instruments of human rights and principle of tolerance were forbidden by the communist authorities. After those cruel days in Chisinau, the OSCE and other international organizations have condemned the violence of demonstrators and police.
A neutral position of international structures did not fit the ambitions of young people to live in a democratic freedom. The late declarations of international observers concerning frauds and errors of those elections and the firm point of opposition to organize repeated parliamentary election, ruled to another crucial day of modern history of Moldova. The new general elections were held on July 29, 2009, with a majority of votes of the formed Coalition of three pro-Western Liberal parties and one Democratic Party in opposition. The Coalition was called itself the “Alliance for European Integration”.
However, the Alliance does not hold enough seats in parliament to protect the support for candidature of president. The communist party has ability to reject it and the repeated parliamentary election in Moldova will be declared unsuccessful. The third parliamentary election could put under risk the fragile national economy, which might conduct to entirety territorial disintegrity. The new Moldova`s Alliance government has to determine the priorities of both domestic and foreign policies. However, prior of this, it is becoming relevant to understand “Quo vadis after second election Moldova?” The politics face this rhetorical question.
The post-communist governance has to face many social and economic struggles belonged to communist regime. The shady economy is factual and unquestionably, it requires time to adjust the national economy patterns to European standards. The foreign policy suffers from the same dilemma of identity crisis unable to define “quo vadis Moldova – Moscow or Brussels?” The recent declarations of the leaders of Alliance attest the intensity to keep both directions in foreign policy – the European Integration and Russia. Than, what makes difference between the programs proposed by communist party and the Alliance, if they both keep the same course of priorities in politics?
The answer should be undeniably in definition of Alliance – “for European Integration”. There is any irony here. Moldova with communist party or European Alliance under rule could not avoid its geographical priorities and geopolitical defense consisted of historical status of European nation within Slavic milieu. If these both important facts could build the treatment of both domestic and foreign policies since independence and would extend within national strategies, plans and programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of these discernments, Moldova certainly could have other files of modern history.
No nationalistic vision and no xenophobic approach could change the quality of life but the correctly treatment of real factors that sustain indeed the evolution of nation in one piece. The error is focusing within approach of that dilemma. The real choice is not between the European Integration and partnership in the framework of Commonwealth of Independent States, or a choice between Brussels or Moscow.
The dilemma is certainly between the defined priorities in both domestic and foreign policy of Moldova and the political will, interest and commitment of Government to implement and follow the process of legal, political, social and economic reforms of European Integration. How far is Moldova to continue certainly the process of European Integration, achieving factual results, which could determine the level of preparedness for the membership of EU?
The answers to these questions must give the program of governance of the Alliance. In the fact, the program attests an insufficient explanation of the issue. Even, there is not yet explained sufficiently how the revitalization of national economy will be proceeded and how the political, judicial and social systems will face reforms and European standards.
The opposition may confront a disappointment in the presidential election. It might not have enough votes in support from communist party. Some experts would say that the communist party has no interest and reason to split the presidential election. I would say the risk must be taken in consideration as soon the Alliance`s plan of governance is still indeterminated and there is no additional plan of governance for the reason if the communist party will not vote the candidature for presidentship proposed by opposition. In that case, the question can have an answer more than rhetoric.
__________________________
Viorica Antonov has a Ph.D. in Political Science and is an alumnus of the European Peace University. Most recently she worked for the UNDP and NATO in Moldova. She is currently studying Economics and Law at Universities of Trento, Ljubljana, Budapest and Regensburg.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 29 Aug 2009.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: QUO VADIS MOLDOVA AFTER REPEATED PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS?, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
Read more
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
COMMENTARY ARCHIVES: