 |
|
| Dionis Cenuşa | |
The government party has continued lobbying EU institutions about the mixed voting system even after passing the bill on July 20, 2017. The opposition has announced that the Democratic Party is using lobbyists (Radio Free Europe, August 9, 2017), such as the Burson-Marsteller company, in order to convince decision-makers in Brussels that the adoption of the mixed voting system took into consideration all the recommendations of the Venice Commission and that it enjoys large popular support. The Democrats also want to dispel accusations that they disregarded the “political pre-conditions” set by the European Parliament in June 2017. The key targets are the European Commission and the European External Action Service. These institutions will soon decide whether the “political pre-conditions” have been met or not and if the 100 million euro macro-financial assistance is possible or not.
The Democrats’ goal is bigger than just obtaining some funding they don’t have to pay back. They need to rebuild their damaged internal reputation and EU financing would be seen as legitimizing the government and its decision to change the electoral system. This could trigger a chain reaction of good things for the Democrats. First of all, they’ll restore their image at home, providing new pro-PDM ammunition for its subordinated mass media. Secondly, it will mean a failure of the extra-parliamentary opposition headed by Maia Sandu and Andrei Nastase, who, despite such allies in Brussels as the PPE, cannot mobilize EU institutions against the government lead by the Democrat leader and oligarch Vlad Plahotniuc. Thirdly, it will damage the standing of civil society, which harshly criticized the mixed voting system. Moreover, a big blow to civil society could be the adoption of legislation limiting their foreign funding (IPN, July 17, 2017). Last but not least, offering macro-financial aid to this government will disappoint local pro-Europeans and will strengthen pro-Russian forces.
The Democrats’ Arguments
The main arguments used by PDM’s lobby in Brussels focus on these issues:
1. The mixed system means that electoral districts will be drawn by an independent commission and not by the Central Electoral Commission. The Democrats are using one of the Venice Commission’s recommendations regarding the creation of an independent and representative commission. It would be made up only of civil society representatives, including geographers and sociologists, as the Venice Commission suggested. According to the Democrats, the government would implement the commission’s decisions unaltered. However, the commission’s membership and regulation of functioning would be decided by the PDM-controlled government. If the commission includes members of civil society and the opposition, which vehemently opposed the mixed vote, adopting decisions unanimously will be impossible. As such, the Democrat government will likely prepare a set of rules to give an advantage to commission members representing central public authorities and PDM-friendly civil society. This might explain the government’s apparently benevolent attitude towards the future independent commission and its decisions regarding the drawing of electoral districts.
2. The mixed voting system will reduce the influence of business interests on future MP candidates. This argument also addresses one of the worries expressed by the Venice Commission. The Democrats think the issue can be solved with a) integrity certificates signed by candidates, and b) reducing the donation threshold fourfold – an upper limit of 50 national average wages for natural persons and 100 wages for companies. Nonetheless, these measures don’t affect the type of business influence highlighted by the Venice Commission. The integrity certificate issued by the National Integrity Agency will only certify the existence of some legal/juridical restrictions and the declaration of personal assets and interests. Limiting the volume of donations doesn’t get rid of the influence of business, but only limits it. The reality of recent years shows that oligarchic groups that control political parties and thus government institutions can influence the behavior and political decisions of MPs by corrupting or threatening them. Donation limits and integrity certificates won’t solve this problem. These measures are welcome, but insufficient.
3. Encouraging the participation of women in elections. This aspect is already covered by the electoral laws and the Venice Commission was referring to their representation within the mixed system. The Democrats decided not only to accept the recommendations but to go one step further in order to satisfy gender-focused foreign observers and European institutions. Thus, parties that promote more women on their candidate lists or in electoral districts will receive up to 10% more funding.
4. The provisions regarding electoral districts abroad and in Transnistria are clarified. Indeed, the Democrats are clarifying these technical aspects, as recommended by the Venice Commission, but the problem of disproportionality of representation of the diaspora and the Transnistrian region in the next Parliament hasn’t been solved. A 500,000 people large diaspora will have three MPs, while the Transnistrian region where only about 100,000 people have proper Moldovan papers will get two MPs (55,000-60,000 voters per district). With the mixed system that limits the diaspora’s representation to three MPs, the Democrats are generating political competition abroad, are depriving extra-parliamentary pro-European parties of active migrant voters and are diminishing the risks related to Moldovan voters abroad, including those in Russia.
The aforementioned examples show that even though they reflect the recommendations of the Venice Commission, the mixed system provisions are tailored to favor the government. Moreover, the Democrats are employing polls and protests, organized by themselves, to simulate a favorable social consensus in society concerning the mixed vote.
First, the Democrats are citing the IMAS poll from July 18 (IPN, July 24, 2017), which they commissioned, but are interpreting it incorrectly. According to the poll, 70% of the people heard that the proportional system is about to be changed because it doesn’t provide a direct link between voter and politician. The Democrats forget to mention that people have been told that in the mixed system they would be allowed to sack their MPs via referendum. They have thus been cheated because the mixed vote bill passed on July 20, doesn’t include such an option, which was deemed unconstitutional by the Venice Commission and by the Democrats themselves.
Secondly, the Democrats are continuously bringing up the sovereignty of the people against the external conditions imposed by the EU. The poll’s authors, IMAS, and the Democrats who commissioned it know very well that in order to receive macro-financial assistance, which comes out of the EU’s benevolence and the EU citizens’ taxes, the government needs to fulfill some “political pre-conditions”. However, they choose to shirk their responsibilities and to label these conditions as “penalties” and their application as a “punishment” for Moldova. This approach fuels Euro-skepticism among Moldovans and subjects the EU to unfounded criticism.
Thirdly, the governing party is claiming the role of peacemakers in the Moldovan society, where consensus is a rare thing. In truth, it was precisely the Democrats’ decision to adopt the mixed voting system that divided the people once more and lead to anti-government protests. It was also PDM who widened fraction lines within civil society. In order to compensate for the lack of public support for the mixed vote, the Democrats are requesting or forcing public workers to participate in manifestations such as that on July 20, in support of the mixed system.
Overall, PDM’s arguments may seem plausible to those unfamiliar with the Moldovan context. They simply managed to combine the Venice Commission’s recommendations with their own political interests and to keep the mixed vote alive. As convincing as some of their arguments might seem, a careful analysis as above shows the contrary.
In place of conclusion
The European institutions will soon announce their decision regarding the macro-financial assistance for Moldova, but the fulfillment of the “political pre-conditions” by the government in Chisinau must be only relevant criterion. Of course, most of the recommendations of the Venice Commission have been reflected in the final bill, but not the main one – not adopting the mixed system at all.
At this stage, we can suppose that the Democrats intentionally first proposed a bill with numerous visible flaws so that afterwards they could fix them, thus accepting the Venice Commission’s recommendations. These flaws and their fixing have been part of a process that helped validate the mixed system.
Although it could be a miskate, the possibility of the EU being convinced by the Democrats’ arguments regarding the legitimacy, legality and safety of the mixed voting system shouldn't be ruled out. Mobilizing protesters, responding to the Democrats’ arguments with legal counter-arguments instead of public populist declarations and active communication with the European institutions are key steps in informing the EU about the true character of the mixed system and delaying the macro-financial assistance.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.
