According to the Communists Party (PCRM), which is in opposition, the Parliament must be dissolved today, June 16. It says that this way the constitutional crisis caused by the non-election of the head of state in Parliament will be unlocked. The PCRM exerted pressure in order to reinforce its viewpoint. Initially, it enjoyed the support of the national civil society and the European countries and organizations. The governing Alliance for European Integration (AEI) insisted on its own scenario for overcoming the constitutional crisis. It proposed holding a referendum to amend the Constitution and then calling presidential and early legislative elections. The Parliament is be dissolved later. The civil society and the European states and organizations passed on the government coalition's side totally and partially, in an obvious or less obvious way. The AEI considers that it emerged victorious in the dispute with the PCRM as it was stronger from legal, political and organizational viewpoints. This point of view is supported by an essential element – the latest political confrontations. Besides the legal, political and organizational aspects, the leaders of the political class in Moldova expressed in a different way their instinct of self-preservation. The given instinct as a rule warns when the risk, including the political one, threatens the one that risks. Besides, the related behavior will dictate the rules of the game in the future, as only a battle is over, not yet the war. [ A matter of life and death...] No matter what they say, the sides struggle for power, want to maintain or regain it They used all the forces and the levers available, even if the non-permitted ones. It seems that the sides, in turn, lose the sense of reality or even the instinct of self-preservation. The diagnosis made by the EU Special Representative for Moldova Kalman Mizsei, who knows the political developments in Moldova very well, was confirmed. He said “the challenges are abound and the critical one is that on both radical ends of the political spectrum people are afraid that the other side wants to annihilate them. That in spite of a generally extremely tolerant Moldovan society” (http://www.info-prim.md/?a=10&nD=2010/03/01&ay=29134). It is true what Kalman Mizsei says, but it seems that this terminator-like behavior is typical not only of the extremes, but of the whole political class and every political organization in relation to its own existence, according to the principle “all against all”, with everyone facing the risk of disappearing. At this stage, the Moldovan political class did not consider the dialogue with the opponents and the partners as a major instrument in the political battle. Therefore, the solution to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution is good not only for unlocking the constitutional crisis, but also for 'educating' the political class that thinks they hold the truth and do not need dialogue and talks. For the first time after the proclamation of independence, these elites have learned the lesson that the last word and the supreme decision is made by the people so that the rigid position is counterproductive. [Vladimir Voronin and the PCRM – everything or nothing] The PCRM in this confrontation behaved according to its own style, whose essence is absurd – everything or nothing, and shows that it lost its instinct of self-preservation. This is an irrecoverable loss as what the party and its leader Vladimir Voronin did until present, including after the April 2009 legislative elections, can be regarded as an act of self-destruction. The PCRM and Vladimir Voronin were unable to obtain one vote in Parliament to remain in power for at least four years more. The previous eight years were also marked by the same rigidity and political inability to hold talks. The PCRM and Vladimir Voronin revealed this inability to discuss in the relations with the European organizations as well. The Communist leader could not hide his irritation to what he called “unclear maneuvers”, after the European organizations accepted the AEI's arguments concerning the unlocking of the constitutional crisis. He implied that the government collation have attracted the Europeans on their side by dishonest methods, possible by corruption. It seems that Vladimir Voronin judges by his own experience how the advantages offered by the power can be used in the foreign relations. During his eight years in power, almost all the foreign officials who visited Moldova received presents, decorations and were taken to taste Moldovan wines. The PCRM and Vladimir Voronin did not undesirable the essence of the political changes in the modern European area, where mainly government coalitions rule countries and the political dialogue bridges are not burned for good, and where the principle “everything or nothing” was replaced with the principle “all different, all equal”. [Vladimir Voronin and the PCRM defeated with their own weapon] The leaders of the AEI were also tough on the PCRM. They turned out to be good 'pupils' of the Communist leader Vladimir Voronin. The leader of the Liberal Party Mihai Ghimpu, the Head of Parliament and Acting President, insisted on intolerance most of all. The essence of such an approach was recently explained by the Gagauz dissident Ivan Burgugi: “Ghimpu has the historical task of politically exterminating Vladimir Voronin. Only Ghimpu can do it”. It is such situations that Kalman Mizsei probably referred to. [“Alexandru Lapusneanu” lesson learned by the AEI leaders] The four parties that formed the AEI and their leaders had a different behavior in this political confrontation, but manifested also PCRM-like symptoms, respectively behavior that endangers the existence, both in the relations with the PCRM and with the coalition partners, the government coalition in general. Dissenting opinions were often expressed inside the Alliance. The disagreements were overcome with difficulty and the coalition partners made attacks on each other, directly or indirectly. Certainly, in the future legislative elections the leaders of the Alliance and the member parties will suffer the consequences of these 'nerves' caused to the sympathizers of the AEI (or the non-sympathizers of the PCRM). However, the leaders of the AEI - Vlad Filat, Mihai Ghimpu, Marian Lupu, and Serfaim Urecheanu – were able to overcome the divergences and adopt a common position, their political, juridical and organizational abilities playing an important role in this. But the disagreements inside the Alliance were overcome mainly due to the instinct of self-preservation of its leaders. Each of the four leaders had enough political and personal reasons to be afraid of the coming to power of Vladimir Voronin, whom they turned into a “monk” after the early legislative elections and the events held in the center of Chisinau at the start of last April. The four leaders have always borne in mind the warning made by the ruler of the medieval Moldova Alexandru Lapusneanu “If I get up, many will be ordained priests...”. Ruler Lapusneanu was poisoned by boyars, by the hand of his wife, for despotism. Now this will be called authoritarian spirit, lack of capability to hold dialogue, disrespect for the interests of others. Thus, Vladimir Voronin's political career can be associated with that of Alexandru Lapusneanu, not the political career of Stefan cel Mare or “Bogdan the Founder “– as he wanted to remain in history. xxxxx The sense of self-preservation is or should be typical of the physiological and social organisms. If this sense is lost, there appear risks, including of self-destruction. The difference is that the physiological organisms risk their own lives, while the social organisms, like the political organizations, endanger the whole society that they govern. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]