“In the process of building the front of the left, the adherent political forces should show precaution so as not to become victims of the chess game, turning into partners of the mafia and the bandits or into pawns of the imperial movement instead of members of the so-called front of the left…”
---

Ideological inconsistency of eventual front

The leader of the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova Igor Dodon resigned himself to the inevitability of the snap parliamentary elections, urging to constitute the common front of the parties of the left: “We must build a common front against the parties of the right”. The intention to constitute the common front is legitimate if the aim is to secure increased support from the people in snap elections. For now, there are only preconditions for building an electoral bloc with the participation of the PSRM and the Shor Party, which managed to form a parliamentary majority. The constitution of the common front of the parties of the left is not impossible, but there are impediments that can be removed with difficulty in this process.

A serious impediment is ideological in nature. After its last congress of December 2020, the PSRM is no longer a party of the left. The party’s new political program provides that the official ideology of the PSRM is social conservatism that is a current within conservatism. The hurry in which the administration of the PSRM imposed the change of the ideological orientation shows that the given decision wasn’t broadly discussed within the party and the implications of the adherence to the ideology of social conservatism weren’t discussed either. In this connection, the PSRM’s intention to join the Socialist International (SI), which is stipulated in its new political program, generates confusion. The truth is the ideology of social conservatism and the actions of the leader of the PSRM do not match the principles of the SI:

• the main documents of the SI, among which is the Declaration of Principles of the SI, provide that the adherent parties pursue a common goal – democratic socialism. The PSRM just renounced the ideology of democratic socialism that it embraced in 2014-2020, in favor of social conservatism;
• the democratic socialism pleads for the full guaranteeing of human rights, the individual freedoms being a condition for ensuring human dignity. This makes the PSRM’s intention to join the IS absurd as the protection of human rights has never formed part of the PSRM’s priorities. On the contrary, recently the leader of the PSRM stated his support for the regime of Lukashenko, who suppressed with brutality the protest mounted by the citizens whose vote at the presidential elections of August 9, 2020 was stolen. The same loyalty was shown to the regime of Vladimir Putin, who drastically restrained the civil freedoms, especially after the publication of the investigation of the Anti-Corruption Foundation;   
• the SI supports, in a principled way, the globalization processes, laying emphasis on the discrepancy between the countries of the South and North. Also, globalization is supported by the President of the People’s Republic of China that is stipulated as one of the strategic partners of the Republic of Moldova in the PSRM’s political program. The curiosity here resides in the fact that after the Chinese leader Si Jinping in the Davos Forum of 2017 pleaded the cause of globalization, the leader of the PSRM, in the Economic Forum of Saint Petersburg, ventured to follow the opposite path: “Globalization started to yield to the principle of glocalization, which is manifested through the intensification of the local particularities of nations… For us, it is morally important to strengthen our statehood, to reunify the country, to detach ourselves from globalization in which Moldova does not have a place as we will be simply crushed, including our economy, traditions and faith. For us, it is important to adhere to glocalization so as to be together in those regional associations and with those countries with which we have a common past”.

The several aforementioned examples suggest that it is hard to find another political party with a more inconsistent behavior than that of the leaders of the PSRM. In this connection, the PSRM’s pretention to become a strategic center of attraction for a front of the parties of the left is simply disqualifying.

PSRM’s reputation is an impediment to common front

There is no doubt that about a dozen of small parties without electoral weight can accept the PSRM’s proposal to constitute the common front. It won’t be bad if they do it. But the leaders of the PSRM look for the friendship of parties with particular weight. Among these, the leader of the PSRM noted only the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM), expressing simultaneously its flattery and regret: “We have always showed respect for the PCRM, even if some of the representatives of this party made irrelevant statements”. The truth is the statements made by the leader of the PCRM concerning the leader of the PSRM have never been irrelevant, but have been very pertinent:

• it is definite that the current leaders of the PSRM are ungrateful persons who, being promoted to the top of the political pyramid of the PCRM, betrayed the party and its leader Vladimir Voronin. An aggravating circumstance is that the betrayal took place in the crucial moment, when the PCRM was close to taking revenge for losing the power in 2009. Later, with the camouflaged support of President Vladimir Putin, the PSRM confiscated the voters of the PCRM;
• the capacities of the leader of the PSRM were assessed by the leader of the PCRM by the same terms than those that were often used by the propagandists of the PSRM, so that the pretentions are out of place.     

Examples of deviant behavior on the part of the PSRM can be yet given. The PSRM leader’s predilection for playing chess with his partners is known by the potential members of the front of the left. The leaders of the parties that will accept to join the eventual front of the left will have to take other factors into consideration as these factors are much more important than the ideological inconsistency and damaged reputation of the PSRM. This way, the parties that will join the front of the left will become potential allies of the mafia and the bandits (min. 7.00-15.21). The future partners of the PSRM should take into account the fact that the ideological inconsistency and damaged reputation of the PSRM are some trivial things. In fact, the PSRM has a well-determined goal that is camouflaged with difficulty – maintaining of the Republic of Moldova in the sphere of influence of Russia. That’s why the parties that will eventually joint the front of the left risk becoming part of the Russian imperial movement, as the PSRM did when it accepted:

• to support the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation so as to become beneficiaries of the support of Vladimir Putin, to the detriment of the PCRM. It goes to a fact that became known in advance, but was confirmed later, having also recent consequences;
• the generous financing from GAZPROM with sums of $ 700,000-800,000 for the monthly maintenance of the party;
• opening in Chisinau of the branch of the Izborsk Club, which is a component of the Russian imperial movement whose members fought in Donbas and openly pleaded for the inclusion of Transnistria and Donbas into the composition of Russia;
• retransmission on the territory of the Republic of Moldova of propaganda through the agency of TV channels from Russia so as to also benefit from the dissemination of the own party propaganda;
• embracing of the Russian-type social conservatism that is the official ideology of the ruling party “Edinaya Rossiya” (United Russia) that is led by Vladimir Putin.       

We see that the change of the PSRM’s ideology means not only movement on the political spectrum from the left to the right. It also means the bringing of the ideology embraced by the PSRM in compliance with the cooperation agreement signed with United Russia in 2017. This way, the objectives of United Russia became the objectives of the PSRM. The aforementioned examples confirm this.

Conclusions

The ideological inconsistency of the PSRM became evident and harmful to the party. The renouncing of the ideology of democratic socialism in favor of social conservatism is a tribute paid to the Russian imperial movement, the ruling party of Russia, United Russia, and to President Putin. The latter openly became involved in the elections in the Republic of Moldova, contributing to the augmentation of the support of the Russian-speaking voters for the PSRM from 0.5% to ~20%. Later, the open support was camouflaged by financial injections from GAZPROM etc.

In the process of building the front of the left, the adherent political forces should show precaution so as not to become victims of the chess game, turning into partners of the mafia and the bandits or into pawns of the imperial movement instead of members of the so-called front of the left.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the PSRM should adjust the information placed on its official website to the provisions of its new political program. In particular, in the section ABOUT THE PARTY, the information about the party’s doctrine should be modified: social conservatism. It will be this way fair towards the potential adherents of the common front of the left who can fall into the trap of democratic socialism.