The referendum is not only about the foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova. The referendum is about how the Republic of Moldova decides to develop internally, what it wants to obtain as a model of socio-economic development, said the president of the Association "Experts for Security and Global Affairs" Angela Gramada, who considers that this model of socio-economic development is greatly influenced by the way in which the political institutions of the Republic of Moldova will manage or fail to transform themselves, to have a very critical approach and view about their own existence. The statements were made at a public debate titled "The referendum has passed. What's next?", which was organized by IPN News Agency.
Angela Gramada noted that in the Republic of Moldova, the referendums did not exactly have a positive experience. As many times as they were held, both in 2010 and in 2019, they have not passed. At that time, the population preferred to boycott them and thus slap the authorities who organized them poorly. This time the people came out to vote. She expected the referendum will be boycotted by those who would have wanted to say "No" rather than make the effort to come and express their opinion. They also had the opportunity to refuse the ballot for the referendum as it was not an obligation to receive the ballot paper together with the one for the presidential election.
The president of the Association "Experts for Security and Global Affairs" said that what impressed her, from the point of view of a person who looks professionally at all this evolution, is the lightness with which the government and also the pro-European parties treated the constitutional referendum. All this in the context in which, since the spring of this year, there were public messages from the political forces that wanted the referendum to fail. She saw Ilan Shor's statements, the attitude of some local public authorities in particular regions of the Republic of Moldova and their connection with the political forces that frequently expressed themselves in the public space. These forces were much more present to speak negatively, while the authorities and representatives of pro-European forces did not talk enough about the benefits and opportunities of the referendum. This left a lot of room for maneuver for those who told a lot of lies. Also, the Church interfered in politics, which, this time, even manipulated the voter in the Republic of Moldova, without there being an appropriate penalty for such acts.
According to her, the way in which the opportunities for European integration have been promoted matters a lot and it is imperative to speak in a way that the people understand what European integration is, but this was done insufficiently. And from this point of view, a very large burden was placed on civil society and the press. But the authorities and the politicians representing pro-European parties forgot that civil society in the Republic of Moldova has very few resources. And it cannot take on the task that normally should have been honored, first of all, by the political parties that joined this initiative or by the ruling party, which initiated it.
Angela Gramada noted that it often happens that people know about the renovation of an edifice, but they do not know from what sources. This part of strategic communication was vehemently absent. The external partners, which should have monitored these aspects, were not involved either.
Angela Gramada believes that the best solution is to educate citizens to differentiate between correct and false information, to apply critical content approach tools. And this also means teaching them to get to the original source of information, to expose disinformation or propaganda and to put questions, including to those who ask for their vote.
The debate "The referendum has passed. What's next?" was staged by IPN News Agency as part of the project "A fair and informed vote for a European Moldova", funded by the European Union and the German Marshall Fund.
