In the program “Emphasis on today” broadcast by TVR channel on September 26, 2018, Deputy Prime Minister and president of the European People’s Party of Moldova (PPEM) Iurie Leancă, said the PPEM will take part in the parliamentary elections of next year independently, not as part of as bloc. According to him, the decision is not final, but the party’s analysis line shows they should do so. This diplomatic dexterity of the PPEM leader deserves to be appreciated. In plain words, this means one thing – if a party offered the PPEM to form an electoral alliance, the proposal would be accepted. If not, the PPEM would run in elections individually.
The electoral strategy of the PPEM president is optimistic, as was the slogan with which the nine members of the parliamentary group of the PPEM entered Moldova’s Parliament on the ticket of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (PLDM) in 2014 – Together towards a European future! So, the big problem of the PPEM is the fact that it is a direct descendant of the PLDM, which was turned from a leader of the European integration into a scapegoat for ruining the relevant success story. Now, to be eventually wanted as the partner of an electoral coalition by a party with chances, the PPEM should show that it is the healthy half or the best part of what the PLDM was once. It will be very hard to do this as the ruining of the European course of the Republic of Moldova occurred exactly in 2013 – 2014, when namely Iurie Leancă was Prime Minister and vice president of the PLDM. This included the conceding of the International Airport and Banca de Economii, followed by the famous theft of the century, facilitated by the governmental decision to assume responsibility, twice. Thus, if the good part of the PLDM was formed of those who left the party to join the Democratic Party (PDM) through the agency of the PPEM, the conclusion would be that the best part of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM), for example, consisted of the 2/3 of Communist MPs who also defected the party to the PDM. The key question here is – what qualities helped the PDM become a center of attraction similarly for former members of the PLDM and for former Communists? The answer to this question is a big enigma shrouded in mystery! Until the given enigma is discovered, it will be problematic for the PPEM to show to someone that it indeed was the best part of the PLDM not vice versa.
But let’s continue to decipher the diplomatic message of the PPEM leader. As an independent political entity, the PPEM took part in the presidential elections of 2016 where the party’s leader Iurie Leancă gained only ~3% of the vote. Respectively, polls during the past two years showed the party’s rating does not exceed the margin of sampling error of 3%. It is thus more than strange why the PPEM supported the switchover to the mixed electoral system promoted by the PDM as it is very well known that the uninominal component of the mixed system suits exclusively the parties with very high ratings or with a lot of resources. Only the PDM has a lot of resources. So, the conclusion is that the PPEM did one more service to the PDM and it is thus waiting for a reward, which is the acceptance of the PPEM as the PDM’s ally. There is simply no other solution for forming a coalition, while the PDM really does not need an electoral ballast.
Namely in this context, the leader of the PPEM in the mentioned program tried to diplomatically contradict the PDM leader Vlad Plahotniuc, who recently asserted that the previous governments did nothing useful for Moldova until they took over in 2016. That’s why the electoral project of the PDM is called pro-Moldova. In such circumstances, the leader of the PPEM had to remind the public opinion that: the PDM has been actually in power since 2009; roads were built and repaired until 2016 too; kindergartens and schools were repaired; water supply and sewage systems were built, etc. However, saying this, Iurie Leancă showed again diplomatic dexterity so as not to antagonize somehow the coordinator of the current government and to leave place for hope that the PDM will remember the very precious services provided by the PPEM to it. If the leader of the PDM does not remember these services, the PPEM will have to take part in the upcoming parliamentary elections alone.
A propos, by this participation the PPEM will continue to extend the series of useful services provided for the PDM as the PPEM could attract several percentage of votes from the eventual pro-European, anti-oligarchic coalition. And this service could be really rewarded by the PDM by the appreciation of the diplomatic qualities of the president and vice president of the PPEM, one way or another. We can only guess what will happen to the party after these eventual exchanges of concessions. The 30 inactive parties of the existing 45 will be probably joined by another one.
IPN Experts
