The first part of this analysis published on August 3, 2010 {(see “AEI has died ‘a good death’. Long live A! Info-Prim Neo analysis, part I” here)} suggested that the experience of governing in coalition of the Alliance for European Integration (AEI) deserves being studied, mainly because it is the first of the kind after an interval of 10 years and because we will possibly have similar forms of government in the future. The phrase “Long Live A (Alliances)!” derives from here. We assert that the AEI has died a ‘good death’ as the humans and other organisms die when the time comes. The conclusion about the {de facto} end of the AEI’s term in office comes in the context of the approaching election campaign for the early legislative and presidential elections, when the Parliament and the Government controlled by the Alliance will become “interim” and will not be able to adopt very important decisions for the country and the government coalition’s fate. The positions taken by the leaders of the AEI after the first part of the analysis was published confirm again that the Alliance has died, unofficially for the time being. Until now, the AEI existed despite the forecasts, dangers, internal and external dangers described in the first part of the analysis. It resisted because it supplied itself how it knew and from what it could. [Sources for “reinforcement”] The strength of the Alliance became questionable. The leaders of the AEI assured us that their political marriage was durable, especially when the divorce was rather possible. In fact, it was a rather mature and rational behavior from political viewpoint, including because they gave the impression that they agreed to argue in order to keep appearances. Sometimes, the leaders of the AEI dealt thus with the conflicts between the interests of the Alliance and its components, which shows that the national political class reached a certain level of maturity. This conclusion is yet valid only for the period that preceded the “death of the deer”. That’s why it will be good for everyone if the date of the dismemberment of the Alliance and the reasons will be made public and explained, in the same way as it was formed. The delay in making such an official announcement will confirm in fact the suspicions that “the principles have been betrayed”, voiced by those who criticize the AEI and fueled by some of its components, with a new force the last few days. The confirmation for the residents of this country would mean the burial of another illusion/chance of ‘easy Europeanization’. This is how we described the Moldovans’ capacity to govern the country democratically in coalition in the first part. [Services of secret services] Another fueling source comes from the West. The foreign donors and important international political players put their trust in the government coalition formed in Moldova. This trust materialized in the form of large sums of money with which serious social problems are solved and avoided in Moldova and in other forms. The reorientation of the support provided in unlocking the constitutional crisis from the PCRM to the AEI is a relevant example. Where does this increasing trust of the international partners come from? Some of the politicians from the Opposition speculate that there are certain businesses between the Western partners and the Government, while others say foreign secret services were involved in the governance in Moldova. However, the critics should admit to the existence of similar sins in 2005 and after, when the West supported directly and indirectly the second term in office of Vladimir Voronin and, respectively, the second mandate of government of the PCRM, without rivals and without Opposition. Actually, the international players supported the clear political message of the AEI. It is rather the univocal message and lack of double standards that count at national and foreign level. It is hard to obtain this when the country is governed by coalition, but it is possible. It is true that before providing money and putting their trust in the AEI, the international partners informed themselves about the state of affairs inside the Alliance, given that its leaders apparently and really harassed each others. We do not know if the Western partners (the U.S.) used the services of secret services for the purpose, but it is evident that they knew much more about the guarantees of the Alliance’s functioning and about the secrets of the former administration that moved to the Opposition than the ordinary Moldovan people. [Instinct of self-preservation as one of the guarantees] The Alliance was fueled by the self-preservation instinct of the AEI leaders, who realized the danger of the PCRM, especially its leader Vladimir Voronin, returning to power. Each of the four leaders had good reasons, including personal, to be afraid of this return and keep this danger in mind when the relations in the coalition were under strain. The four leaders have always borne in mind the warning made by the ruler of the medieval Moldova Alexandru Lapusneanu “If I get up, many will be ordained priests...”. Ruler Lapusneanu was poisoned by boyars, by the hand of his wife, for despotism. Thus, Vladimir Voronin's political career can be associated with that of Alexandru Lapusneanu, not the political career of Stefan cel Mare or “Bogdan the Founder “– as he wanted to remain in history. ({See “Instinct of self-preservation expressed differently by Moldovan political leaders. Info-Prim Neo analysis” here}). Anyway, the ‘fear’ that the future alliances might be also destroyed will be useful in the future as not only the crazy ones experience such a feeling. [One fire drives out another...] Among the accomplishments of the government coalitions that should be taken into account after the November 2010 elections is the appropriate distribution of the roles among the components of the Alliance, according to the principle “who is able to do something better and where somebody is more useful”. Not everything was perfect in this respect, but certain elements produced results. For example, Mihai Ghimpu was useful in annihilating the attacks of the parliamentary Opposition, even if many of his actions did not meet the European political standards and were disapproved of by many members of the AEI and the author of this analysis in particular. Certainly, it was not easy for the Communist MPs to accept the frequent closure of the microphones, the gibing as argument in discussions, and others. But Ghimpu acted according to the principle “one fire drives out another” in order to obliterate this style that is disapproved in politics, but was used by the former administration, especially the leader Vladimir Voronin. Voronin probably referred to this when he recently admitted that he underestimated Ghimpu. Until present, we had only two politicians who responded with attack to the inconvenient questions put by the political adversaries and the press, increasing thus their charisma. But Voronin was removed from power and Mihai Ghimpu will face the same risk if he continues to play this role. [... Today, August 5, the PLDM will propose legislative amendments allowing reducing the future election campaign from two months to a month. The proposal will not be accepted by the other three member parties of the AEI even if Premier Vlad Filat’s party argues that the move is aimed at saving budget money. Respectively, the initiative will not be backed in Parliament or will have to be accepted by the PCRM as well... The third and last part of the analysis “AEI has died a ‘good death’. Long live A!” will focus on the possible scenarios of the future election campaigns in the context of government coalitions. Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]