{Info-Prim Neo interview with Speaker and interim President Marian Lupu, head of the Democratic Party, from the series “2011: then way it was and was not” – “The AIE agreement – a year of government”} [ –What is AIE-2’s quality after a year of government? Do you thinks it’s solid as concrete, as some of its leaders often say?] – I accept to speak in metaphors, although sometimes we might need clearer assessments. AIE’s political quality will be shown at the next elections. I do my best to avoid early elections, to avoid the political crisis, because it’s necessary the current Parliament carried out its legal mandate and the people judged it based on the announced 4-year program. The government coalition, the Alliance for European Integration, and the opposition, which has its own role and responsibility in a democratic state towards the national interests and people’s expectations, will both be judged. I’d stress that besides political constructions, society must monitor every party and MP aside, what are they doing besides demagogy, what are their results. After rating, voters will have to choose between politicians and parties, not logos or agreements. The “concrete” of the Alliance has passed through fire and ice showers. Water strengthens the concrete, but combined with fire it can destroy it. A block can be turned into small pieces or even dust. Every member of the governing majority must take into consideration these properties of concrete in order to know to maintain this political construction. The coalition government is still something incredible for the Moldovan political and administrative system. But AIE has results! And it resisted 2 years, it’s at the 2nd legislative mandate if we consider the early elections. There’s no space for details, but I’ll tell you there are two types of results of the governing act. The first type is emotional, is about how people feel the social and political atmosphere. And we have some who took care to cause scandals and disgust society. It would be better if society’s reproach would be aimed at the ones who caused the whole scandal and not at the AIE. The second result is that of real politics, is assessed in numbers, in concrete achieved goals by the government, by Moldova. From this point of view, we are all affected by the chaos of prices and tariffs, but we managed a slight economic growth compared to the collapses in more developed countries. It’s because the Alliance for European Integration was maintained that a social-economic crash was avoided in Moldova. [ – The Alliance was on the verge of collapsing several times. Why do you think this happened and what kept the AIE parties together? ] – Saying that it was on the verge of collapsing is how one saw it from the exterior when someone simply launched his ordinary attacks against partners within the AIE. I understand things seemed like this. It’s all limited to political rivalry, which lacks fair-play at times, but it didn’t threaten the Alliance or its government goals. Obviously, there are many hard problems to solve, there are different opinions about their causes and methods to solve, but everybody understands people will evaluate us according to the final result and achievements, and not according to our showmanship in front of cameras. I think the politics are becoming more reasonable in Moldova and this assured the longest coalition in the short history of our statehood. We’ve broken the record. [ – If time could be turned back, would the AIE agreement remain the same] – An agreement, like any other act, can hardly be written perfectly. There is always space for improvement, but with one condition, like doctors, not to worsen it. I must admit civil society was right to observe that politicians crossed the limit of what they were allowed to negotiate. I think it didn’t happen because of evil intentions, but because of lack of trust and the desire to have a system of internal balance and guarantees. This experience is highly valuable and I opt for a different kind of guarantees in the field of fundamental reforms, which we are obliged to continue. The politics must withdraw from spheres it has nothing to do with, from justice to science. What I hate and I will categorically refuse is to speculate past mistakes in order to cause bigger troubles, to deal with annoying persons, to change yours with mine, or to trash state institutions because of one’s whims, as happened to the headless Security and Intelligence Service of Moldova. However, if we return to the alliance agreement, you must recognize it remains functional. Even those who claimed it had to be amended, finally agreed it should be developed through an annex that was signed this month by all AIE parties. [ – To what extent were the relations in AIE and in the country as a whole regulated by the written and unwritten rules of the AIE agreement? ] – It’s hard to answer as there are no measurement units. The agreement and its spirit are the basis of government’s activity plan, voted by the parliamentary majority and assured with legislative support. We named the prime minister and the founding parties gave the vote of confidence to the cabinet of ministers. That’s the basic measurement of the way the agreement and our political deals have been applied. Next, I should go chapter by chapter, but I’ll summarize and say we had both successes and setbacks in the domains of sector policies and structural reforms, as I don’t want to bee to critical during the holidays… [ – Are there any other forms of governments beside coalitions possible in Moldova?] – It depends on the voters. As they say, each people deserves its rulers. We must also consider the capacity of coalition partners to disgust citizens so they would vote for even a worse alternative. From a practical point of view, we had 8 years of one-party government. Why should we rule it out? I can tell you that what is done within a so-called government-party is hidden from public sight, but it’s not as bad and destructive as what can be seen within an alliance. It’s hard for politicians to govern in a coalition, but it’s transparent and better for the country. [ – How did the Party of Communists cope with their role as parliamentary opposition?] – It’s rare when leaders of governing coalitions rate the opposition. Usually it’s vice versa. However, I’ll say that PCRM is still overwhelmed by the frustration to have lost power and hasn’t entered its normal role as an opposition party. Their main form of manifestation was their absence. If they acted reasonably, they would help overcoming the political crisis- a national goal that would strengthen Moldova’s statehood. They would have got a moral bonus and the chance to obtain concessions from the government to support their people in districts and defend the interests of Communist voters. In 2011, PCRM leaders missed this chance and both the party and its voters were on the losing side. I urge the opposition to analyze its own situation and take its mission seriously in 2012 in order to balance the political developments to the benefit of all Moldovans. [Irina Turcanu, Info-Prim Neo]