Can somebody imagine persons begging at the door of the church who offend frontally the faithful going out of the church and ask for 1 leu from them at the same time? Did somebody see those beggars pushing each other in pursuit of the wanted leu? Did a beggar ever dared to ask a person to bring him the leu home or to another suitable place? Certainly, no. But the Moldovan political elite thinks in a different way and behaves differently towards society in general and every person in particular, from which they claim by 1 leu/vote to be given on June 5, 2011. The candidates for high-ranking posts in the local public administration, especially the administration of Chisinau, consider it appropriate to push each other, call on the people to bring the vote home, and offend them openly, believing that these are virtues that the voters should appreciate. A relevant expression of such impudence is the electoral method of inviting the opponents to so-called public debates, which has been massively used by the contenders lately. The candidate of the Liberal Party Dorin Chirtoaca invited the Communist Party's candidate Igor Dodon to public debates that were to take place at the Wastewater Treatment Station. Igor Dodon did not come, but invited Dorin Chirtoaca to the 'people's tribunal” on Alba Iulia St. The first location puts the current mayor of Chisinau in a favorable light, while the second location would have allowed the Communist candidate to throw serious electoral blows at his opponent if he had accepted the invitation. The candidate of the Christian Democratic People's Party Radu Busila invited Dorin Chirtoaca to 'public debates' at the waste dump in Tantareni village of Anenii-Noi district, with the intention of putting him in an unfavorable light over the inefficient management of garbage in Chisinau. The method is also used by Prime Minister Vlad Filat, who, though not running in the elections and not obliged to leave his post, represents the entire locomotive of the Liberal Democratic Party. Igor Dodon answered him in a similar way. The impudence of the election runners resides in the fact that nobody needs the public and even the opponents in these 'public debates'. Nobody needs to really debate the serious problems faced by the population. They use them rather as election propaganda. Otherwise, they would not make an invitation that they know would be rejected? How one can invite somebody to 'public debates' when the public is physically unable to get to the place where they take place? Only several members of the electoral staff, of the political party that the candidate represents and maybe several, usually very agitated sympathizers will get there. But they do not need to be convinced and do not need to hear another viewpoint in a genuine debate. The invitation to the waste dump in Tantareni points to the superlative degree of the ridiculous situation in which the politicians can throw us all. Surely Dorin Chirtoaca would not accept such an invitation, while the disinterested public of such debates can include only locals who vote for other local administrations than that of the municipality of Chisinau. They only use the pain of these people for political purposes. We should be probably glad that they did not find another place with a more unpleasant smell for 'public debates'. Certainly, a part of the Moldovan press will also go to that 'public debates' even if there is an unpleasant smell. They will absorb those 'figures of speech' and electoral 'findings' prepared by the politicians and will make sure that they reach the Moldovan voters. We cannot demand that the current candidates, staffs and their parties should know what a public debate is and ensure equal conditions for the participants, a suitable discussion place for them and the public, unrestricted access for all those who want, etc. But we can demand that the politicians should use at least their common sense when they fight for votes. Those who compete for posts are rather disinterested in these debates because the genuine, sincere debates involving the public represent real instruments for engaging the population in managing the community problems, in making decision concerning their life. Most of the current politicians are not yet ready to abandon their 'hereditary' right to take decisions instead of others and the simulation of public debates proves this. This impertinence deprives me, as a voter, of the chance to become involved in managing my own problems, but the candidates claim the vote and, respectively, the post, from me. It is known that there is rivalry, spheres of influence and settling of accounts even among those who beg at the door of the church. But the ordinary faithful people do not feel this. We, the voters, are to decide whether we should allow those impertinent to win or not. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]