The Moldovan precedent could become a source of inspiration for the oligarchic regimes in Georgia and Ukraine, if these feel a threat of imminent annihilation of their clientele systems, expert in political sciences Dionis Cenusa says in an analysis article for IPN Agency.
In a subtle form, the ruling party managed to combine the partial implementation of provisions of the Association Agreement (technical aspects in trade, customs, etc.) with the ignoring, delay or violation of others (anticorruption policies, ensuring of free competition, rule of law, etc.), explained the politologist.
According to him, the hybrid implementation of the commitments assumed before the EU creates a wide maneuvering space for the government, where the successes are diminished by regression, while the general progress is very fragile.
The developments related to the election invalidation in Moldova opens up new “perspectives” for similar political regimes of the region, whose common comparison point is the oligarchic forces’ monopoly on the political decision-making process.
The Moldovan precedent exemplifies a competition between the oligarchic players and the EU institutions. For now, the first show that the EU can be misled, while the relations with this can be exploited for the benefit of the own political agenda. At the same time, the EU shows its weaknesses that result from the strategic thinking, strict observance of the legal provisions and the refusal to enter the game of local players.
The first aspect of the Moldovan precedent is the fact that this projects the capacity of a government to confront the EU when it is about political survival.
Moreover, the given government can neglect the political pre-conditions imposed by the EU for disbursing macro-financial assistance. Similarly to Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia also benefit from EU assistance that implies technical requirements concerning the respect for democratic institutions. The government in Moldova has always been reticent to the political preconditions and even compared them with interference in the internal affairs or limitation of sovereignty.
The second aspect shows the sacrifice that a government that consciously and deliberately deteriorated the dialogue with the EU can make, on condition that financial assistance and external legitimacy can be accessed from other sources.
More exactly, the government managed to excellently coordinate the relations with the IMF and the World Bank, offsetting thus the damaged relationship with the EU.
At the same time, the focusing of attention on the resolution of the Transnistrian issue balanced the attitude of the national governments of the EU, which, after Austria took over the presidency, is mainly preoccupied with existential problems (migration, external borders) and the Western Balkans.
Without a reaction that would be painful for the government, the Moldovan precedent risks expanding to Georgia and Ukraine during the next few years, concluded Dionis Cenusa.
