IPN analysis: Last week the public opinion in Moldova was shaken by discussions about two issues addressed in a package according to the same “two in one” principle that was described in the  IPN analysis of last Monday. If one of them – the threats to the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media - was solved, even if temporarily or partially, the second one – the ensuring of the information security of the state - is yet to have an effect. Moreover, the tackling of these two themes together can make the given effect more powerful and destructive than if they would be examined separately.
---

I speak about the bill debated in Parliament last week, by which important amendments are made to the Broadcasting Code and the Law on the Freedom of Expression. According to its authors - the MPs of the PLDM-PDM government coalition - these amendments are designed to create legislative mechanisms for banning external interference in Moldova’s internal policy through informative and political programs of foreign TV channels, especially Russian ones. On the other hand, they wanted to ensure a balance between the freedom of expression and the right to defend one’s honor and dignity.

Freedom versus Dignity and Honor

The tension created by the ‘freedom versus dignity’ matter diminished rather swiftly, but also in a rather loud way. Civil society, especially the organizations working in the mass media sector, considered that the requirements laid down in the new provisions with the aim of defending the honor and dignity pose a real threat to the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media. The involved politicians announced through different platforms that they withdraw their signatures and the bill that caused controversy. In this respect, we can consider that things went as they should in a living, democratic society, with civil society showing its potential and authority and with the political class showing its capacity to cooperate and make compromises. It should be noted that the solution was found in an atmosphere of dialog and transparency, which is also commendable and shows a sufficient level of democratization of Moldovan society.

But things are not as simple as it may seem. First of all, the fact that these ideas, which can affect the freedom of the media and the freedom of expression that are the most important democratic and European values, appeared inexplicably quickly is a serious reason for concern. Did the representatives of the pro-European government anticipate serious disturbance for these values and appropriate reactions on the part of society? This would mean that after six years of pro-European government (tomorrow it is six years of the April 7, 2009 events), the antidemocratic and anti-European instinct is still alive in the political class. Or they banked namely on such an effect, with the step backward being taken in a planned way so as to hide other, much greater interests related possibly to the second aspect of the legislative initiative? Otherwise, why should particular things be united at a time when, in certain circumstances, this is not recommended or is even dangerous? Or this is not related to other interests and it is just elementary immaturity and political awkwardness?

The most ‘strategic’ strategic interest

Undoubtedly, legislative instruments to ensure the country’s information security are needed and awaited because this kind of security is as important as the military, financial and others types of security, if not even more important when external manipulation and propaganda can replace all the other kinds of security and instruments of interference in Moldova’s internal affairs. The Governor elections in Gagauzia are the most recent argument besides the one related to last year’s parliamentary elections and besides many other almost daily examples. This is thus a mater concerning the country’s strategic interest. It may be harder to find a more strategic interest, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine, with its informational-propagandistic component.

But the way in which this strategic interest was promoted last week arouses concern and disappointment for a number of reasons.

Attack on allies and risk of revolt

By the provisions that generated tension related to ‘freedom’, the authors of the legislative amendments caused an adverse reaction in the ‘educated’ social sections of the population, also through the ‘security’ component. Namely these sections should represent the driving force for directly supporting the measures to ensure information security and to promote it among the population. Because, without this massive support and without a well-thought-out information stage that passed not only through the governmental system, there is a real risk that the discomfort of the lack of access to sources of information that are traditional for many people will generate much more serious revolt than the April 7, 2009 protests. At least such revolt can and will be easily provoked inside the country and outside it because too many people trust the viewpoint of the propaganda of the Russian TV channels and too many people continue to watch the news bulletins with information from Moscow, Khabarovsk and Vladivostok and not many people are interested in the news about Chisinau, Balti or the native district and village.

Circle closes

This is a situation that was cultivated consciously and meticulously by the Russian state and the Russian TV channels for decades. In September 1995, the then leader of Russia Boris Yeltsin issued an important document concerning Russia’s policy towards the CIS stats, which said that the broadcasting of Russia TV and radio programs must be ensured in the countries from the close neighborhood and support for disseminating the Russian publications in the region must be offered, and Russia must train national staff for the CIS countries. The circle sketched 20 years ago by this document is closed by the Russian World strategy, which was announced not long ago, but which already caused serious havoc in the neighboring Ukraine, which actually banned the propaganda of the Russian TV channels on its territory.

The overcoming of this situation in Moldova without bloodshed requires a lot of wisdom and good faith on the part of the political elites so as to convince society that great changes and even sacrifices are needed in the broadcasting sector. Regretfully, the politicians started with the left and drew confrontation lines between them and a large part of the supporters of the democratic freedoms, including the representatives of the mass media and media organizations. By an awkward approach, in concert with the problems of a supreme strategic interest and with those by which party, group or personal interests could be pursued, the government risks throwing away the baby together with the dirty water from the child basin.

“Teleradio-Moldova” company removed from the circuit

Even if the authors of the amendments in the broadcasting sector are right when they say that these changes are necessary and must be made swiftly so as to avoid all kinds of challenges, they are the first who created conditions for the delay. Even if the new provisions start to be implemented quickly without preparing the ground, they can generate the provocations we try to avoid. I already spoke about the compromising of the cooperation with the conscious supporters. But not less important is the fact that the proposed regulations do not envision how media products of a higher quality can appear on the national broadcasting market, which would represent the alternative to the foreign products that would disappear. The better products cannot appear in the absence of new conceptions and increased financing. Therefore, it would be necessary to reform and review the financing for the national public broadcaster “Teleradio-Moldova” whose activity is regulated by the same Broadcasting Code, through special provisions. In particular, it would be useful to implement the European principle of financing public institutions of this kind for a period of several years, which would enable to efficiently manage the finances, depending on the priorities of each year, and to ensure real editorial independence, regardless of the parties that are in power, not speaking about the necessity of doubling or trebling the company’s budget, on condition that it creates those alternative products. Maybe additional financing should be allocated now for their other broadcasters of Moldova too so as to encourage them to create high-quality and attractive products.

However, the authors of the bill propose significantly reducing the budget of “Teleradio-Moldova” by banning the broadcasting of publicity and, respectively, the obtaining of other incomes in addition to the money provided by the state. Yes, the public radio and TV stations from Europe do not broadcast advertisements, including for reasons invoked by the bill authors. But the European countries can offer these stations sufficient financial resources so that these could cope with their national-level tasks. Also, those countries do not face an external information-propagandistic invasion. It’s known that one cannot create high quality products with insufficient financing, not speaking about alternative products. Under the 2015 state budget law, the national public broadcaster “Teleradio-Moldova” will receive about 80 million lei. The company’s own incomes will come to approximately 20 million lei. In general, the state allocations go to pay salaries to employees and the rent for the emitters that belong to another state institution. The salaries are actually ordinary, not like those of judges, and are partially covered with own incomes as the budget money is insufficient. In fact, over the last two years the company didn’t raise financing for development. During the Communist government, the financing was higher. In 2008 for example, the total budget of the company was about 140 million lei and those lei had a different weight compared with the current ones. With the current money it is hard to ensure an alternative.

Looking for the alternatives of the alternative?

Currently, in Moldova there are no other media institutions that can be entrusted with the task of producing an alternative immediately and in a legal way. Maybe institutions from the private sector will later appear, but these will also have the right to ask for appropriate financing from the state, if the authorities want to have the right to place such social orders of such a level.

Maybe the interests that can explain the disagreements that emerged last week derive from here. During some years, the own incomes of the national public broadcaster “Teleradio-Moldova” totaled about 30 million lei, which came mainly from publicity. Possibly this is why the shock related to the unclear attack on the freedom of the media and the freedom of expression appeared overnight. Or maybe the attack was stopped to allow the interest to remain. But the national strategic interest of information security is yet the first victim.

An upsetting analogy appears here. On November 30, 2014, Moldova held parliamentary elections whose stake was the European integration. They say that the same days €1 billion was stolen from Moldova. Last week the stake was to ensure Moldova’s information security so as to also ensure the country’s European course. Will we lose some of the fundamental freedoms and/or something else or not? Or will we be put in the situation to choose the freedoms in exchange for the information security?

Valeriu Vasilică, IPN