The latest events in Parliament and on the political arena in general show that there has never been a parliamentary majority that would support the Gavrilița Government and this would therefore not be voted in. Was today’s event in Parliament an act of courage, an act of sacrifice, a show or buffoonery? Was it a necessary, mandatory act that is worth being undertaken or a formal, injudicious, regrettable act? The experts invited to IPN’s public debate “First attempt to vote in Government: What was it?” tried to respond to these questions.
According to Igor Boțan, the standing expert of IPN’s project, after the Socialist MPs gave a news conference during today’s plenary sitting of Parliament and announced that they will not support the Gavrilița Government, things became clear – this government will not be voted in. “This makes us think about two articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, namely Article 85 that refers directly to the dissolution of Parliament and Article 98 concerning the investiture of the Government. The latter provides that the President is obliged to propose a candidate for Prime Minister.”
According to Igor Boțan, during three months the MPs could not deliver a clear message – if there is a parliamentary majority or not. But the Socialists’ initiative presented today clarified things: we will have a parliamentary majority. The nucleus of this majority is the Socialist parliamentary group. Under the Constitution, after consulting the parliamentary groups, President Maia Sandu will receive this list of at least 51 MPs and she will be obliged to name the Government whose pillar will be the Party of Socialists.
The expert noted that the PSRM proposed Mariana Durleșteanu for Prime Minister, who is considered a respectable person. The big problem is that Mariana Durleșteanu will be officially Igor Dodon “taburetka” for whom those who do not want Parliament to be dissolved will probably vote.
Political analyst Cornel Ciurea said there was no parliamentary majority that would be ready to vote for the Gavrilița Government. The PAS MPs will most probably note vote for the own Government. “What matters in Natalia Gavrilița’s government is the clear political objective of dissolving Parliament and of calling snap elections. But I think there are also arguments against holding snap parliamentary elections,” he said, noting the criticism leveled at the proposed Cabinet member Ala Nemerenco affects the image of this executive in the absence of sufficient information.
“The government program of the Gavrilița Government does not matter as its central idea is the triggering of snap elections. This is a government provided by the President, but its goal is to induce the dissolution of Parliament. In such conditions, those from Parliament had to take part in a somehow embarrassing show that is yet required by the Constitution and requires a particular conduct in virtue of the objective assumed by the PAS – snap elections”.
Communication expert Vlad Țurcanu said that before Natalia Gavrilița and her team went to Parliament, the public perception was that a show was to follow and the governmental program should not be taken into account as it is a document that had rather formal aspects. “But after today’s developments in Parliament, we realized that the government program and the proposed ministers form part of an electoral campaign of the PAS as the PAS, by its informal leader Maia Sadnu, is trying to project its views. There are now two distinct players: the PAS and the PSRM. Respectively, this is a new element that appeared through Natalia Gavriliță’s attempt to obtain support in Parliament, which was considered doomed to failure even by those from the PAS,” he stated.
Also, Vlad Țurcanu said that Natalia Gavrilița’s government program contains concrete things: what a Government should do during the pandemic, the problems faced by the people and businesses and the fight against corruption. These elements in the case of snap elections are expected to be appreciated. If snap elections had been expected and a majority formed of two components had existed, the Cabinet proposed by the PAS would have been different. The goal of the PAS was to present its own team on the occasion of this exercise held in Parliament.
The public debate “First attempt to vote in Government: What was it?” is the 171st installment of the project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
