{[Info-Prim Neo analysis]} On May 25, the Alliance for European Integration (AEI) won an important political victory that smells like a political defeat as well. But the victory and the defeat have several facets. The adoption of the Law on Guaranteeing of Equality and of the Law on the Reformation of the Center for Combating Corruption and Economic Crime (CCCEC) paves the way for the implementation of the Action Plan on the Liberalization of the Visa Regime with the European Union. The implementation stage can begin very soon, on June 26, 2012. The adoption of the last two overdue laws before this date can be considered an incontestable victory given that the two laws met with fierce opposition at different levels and the ruling alliance experienced substantial misunderstandings inside it about the issues. The political consensus reached by the components of the AEI in this respect is probably a political victory that is much greater than that scored against the political and non-political opposition. But the price that Moldova paid and will yet have to pay for this victory is too high and could have been much lower if the political class in general and the ruling alliance in particular had judicially managed the situation. This exaggerated price can be named “deepening of the social division in Moldova”, “continuous deterioration of divergences in Moldovan society” or “missing of another chance to return things in Moldova to normality”. During the long-lasting disputes over one of the two laws, known better by its initial name – the antidiscrimination law, certain divisions within Moldovan society became more acute and there appeared new divisions. The most visible one affected the Orthodox Church of Moldova, which became separated into two distinct camps – one that firmly opposes the law and another one that avoids saying that it is firmly against it, but says nothing in its favor either. They even started to accuse the Moldovan Metropolitan Church and the Metropolitan Bishop Vladimir of betrayal, which shows that the divergences in an area that is more closed rather than transparent are very acute and hierarchism there is deep-rooted. According to opinion polls, the Church has until now enjoyed the greatest trust among the people, compared with the other state institutions, so that there is a danger that the war between the priests will extend to the faithful. The political divergences also became more acute and this would be natural if it did not reveal a very dangerous phenomenon that hinders the “return to normality in Moldova”. At political level, the open opponents of the law are exclusively promoters of the non-European development vector of Moldova. It seems that they target not certain provisions of the given law, but the opportunities offered by it. The free movement of the Moldovans in the European area can become a factor that will change and shape the mentality and will generate new opportunities for the Moldovans at home and abroad. Until now the Moldovans have traveled freely only in the post-Soviet area, which for the time being cannot produce essential changes in their lives. When the Moldovans obtain the right to travel freely in the European area, they will get new opportunities and stimuli for changing the view on the world and their own role in this world. Maybe in Europe and at home they will turn out to be good not only for looking after elderly persons, working illegally and in constructions... Maybe somebody sees in this free movement a danger similar to the one that destroyed the former Soviet Union. The USSR was dismembered from inside after the perestroika offered the population the possibility of going abroad and comparing the life in their country with the life in really developed countries. This idea suggests a possible political component in the schism within the Moldovan Metropolitan Church, which cannot exist without support from a considerable part of the Church’s administration and from outside Moldova. The great mistake or, maybe, blame of the AEI resides in the fact that it did not fully and timely realize the importance of this last legislative segment in the process of liberalizing the visa regime that is the most real and most comprehensible expression in the European integration process of Moldova and the Moldovans. The components of the ruling alliance afforded to stir up internal disputes and to ‘flirt’ with the national voters and the foreign ones in a cheap and populist way, creating thus favorable conditions for the opponents of the European vector. If the law had been passed or rejected long ago, the Moldovans would have forgotten about it and the rows over it. The AEI partly repeated the same behavior as before the September 2010 constitutional referendum on the modification of the procedure for electing the head of state. The plebiscite initiated by the government was won by the opposition because the power did not bother to promote a common message and to combat the message of the opposition, and to discuss with the people. Neither then nor now did the ruling alliance consider it necessary or had the ability to explain the meaning and necessity of this law to the people. It did not explain probably because it does not know what it will do to do away with the sincere and normal fears of a part of the population about the possible negative effects of the law. The government allowed the opponents of the law to manipulate the people and to radicalize their message. For these reasons, the responsibility for the effects of the social tensions then and now should be put on the government. The law concerning corruption, which was passed last week, did not attract the same attention as the antidiscrimination law, but a recent poll by U.S. experts shows that corruption at governmental level is the most serious problem of Moldova... [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]