The Constitutional Court in June declared the Shor Party unconstitutional and by that decision the party was dissolved. As a result, Parliament proposed legislative amendments by which it stipulated that a part of the members of unconstitutional parties will not be able to stand as candidates at elections for a period of five years. However, at the beginning of October, the Court declared unconstitutional the Electoral Code provisions that ban particular persons associated with unconstitutional parties form standing as candidates at elections. The next day, as a matter of urgency, Parliament gave two readings to and adopted a new law by which it instituted another formula of restrictions that prevent particular representatives of the former party from running in the upcoming and in other elections with the announced goal of protecting democracy and statehood. Experts invited to IPN’s public debate “Harshness of the law and “teeth” of democracy in elections” discussed the pluses and minuses of this second law and how it influences the quality of the current election campaign and the state of democracy in Moldova.

Mihaela Duca-Anghelici, legal analyst at Promo-LEX Association, said the main arguments based on which the Constitutional Court took the June decision included the non-transparent and illegal financing of the political party and election campaigns. Illegal financing was witnessed systematically and the Court drew attention to this aspect when it referred to the risk concerning constitutional order, the sovereignty and independence of the country. The Court also took into account the international sanctions that were imposed on particular members, including the chairman of the outlawed party.

“It was also mentioned the repeated exclusion from the electoral race of representatives or candidates of the same political party owing to the negligence or avoidance of Electoral Code norms in a systematic and permanent way. Al these reasons were attentively examined by the Constitutional Court. The Court also examined several cases when the unconstitutional party’s leader urged to oust the constitutional government, even if these didn’t materialize. The Court noted that if the leader of a political party assumed such statements, these can be projected onto the whole political party,” explained the expert of Promo-LEX.

According to the analyst, after the party was declared unconstitutional, Parliament decided to implement particular rulings of the Court. At least this is mentioned in the bill, even if the Court didn’t formulate any recommendation or didn’t say that the electoral legislation should be modified. However, that law institutes the ban on running for a period of five years for persons who were members of the executive body of the party declared unconstitutional and for persons who held elective posts on behalf of the given party. This law was challenged and the Court declared these bans unconstitutional for the reason that there were no implementation distinctions.

Transparency International Moldova executive director Lilia Zaharia said that the first electoral amendments applied to a number of persons. But the new amendments refer to 60-65 persons, namely persons who cannot be registered as election contenders in the upcoming general local elections. It goes to persons suspected, accused or found guilty of the commission of offenses that were mentioned by the Constitutional Court when the political party was outlawed.

“We also speak about persons who were excluded from previous elections following the violation of the principle of transparent financing and persons who are to blame for the commission of deeds that led to their inclusion in sanctions lists, including international sanctions lists,” stated Lilia Zaharia.

According to her, the last amendments didn’t solve the problem. The problem was somehow extended as the amendments were made as a matter of urgency. As the authorities and some of the MPs argued then, the emergency derives from the fact that the elections are close. But some of the principles of democracy were violated and the possibility of taking part in a fair election was limited.

Journalist Ion Terguță said that it goes to the individualization of the deed. Each person should answer exactly for what they are responsible. The Constitutional Court held that all the members of a political party cannot answer for the deeds or a person or a group of persons. Parliament in a way tried to fix this problem, but violated a basic right of the citizens of the Republic of Moldova – the right to stand as a candidate at elections. Things here have worsened already.

“A person can be deprived of the right to stand as a candidate at election following a definitive court judgment. We now see that these persons are accused only from political viewpoint by politicians, without the courts of law having confirmed these things. What the PAS should have done and didn’t do it, hiding behind justice, was to go to court as it didn’t have sufficient instruments for the cases to be tried,” stated Ion Terguță.

According to him, there are multiple examples, like Ilan Shor, Vladimir Plahotniuc, persons who hadn’t been convicted by a final court decision. But there are simplified court procedures that could have been applied and this would have enabled the government in Chisinau to have a court judgment by which the electoral bodies could have prohibited particular persons from running in elections.

The journalist noted that the Central Election Commission didn’t approve of the bill that was adopted by Parliament on October 4. This makes the Parliament’s decision look questionable and there are very big chances that it will be repealed by the Constitutional Court.

“The political power launched a process that normally should contain a number of stages, should be conceptualized. If the political power considered that this party is noxious for the Republic of Moldova because it affects national security, it should have realized that this party has so-called members, persons who are dangerous for the political life of the Republic of Moldova and particular actions concerning them should have been planned. Therefore, the authorities should have taken into account all the legal instruments that can be applied with regard to these persons so as not to experience such a situation,” said Ion Terguță.

The public debate entitled “Harshness of the law and “teeth” of democracy in elections” was the second installment of the series “Stimulation of discussion in the mass media about traditional particularities of local elections and the need for Europeanization” that is staged by IPN News Agency with support from Soros Foundation Moldova.