IPN analysis: The results of the June 14 local elections to choose local, district and municipal councilors confirmed a part of the expectations at national level, but didn’t confirm the other part. What does this lead to? Continuation of the analysis “National symbols of local elections” of June 2, 2015.
---
Several findings and deductions: The local elections of June 14 took place. They were mainly free and fair. The voter absenteeism was high. The political class became more fragmented. The current government and the European course kept its legality at national level. Conditions were created for forming a majority government coalition and for really solving the big problems faced by Moldovan society. Or we will have early parliamentary elections that will represent a disaster both for the country and for the ruling parties and their leaders.
I. Met expectations
In particular, it was expected that the vote will be again geopolitical and it was indeed, at least in the big cities and at least in Chisinau. After the first round of the mayoral elections in Chisinau, which was won by the candidate of the Liberal Party (PL) Dorin Chirtoaca, the Party of Socialists (PSRM) and its candidate Zinaida Grecheanyi realized that the trump card they used in the parliamentary elections of November 2014 – the influence of the image of Russia and of Vladimir Putin – turned mainly into a handicap or returned in the form of a boomerang, hitting those who threw it. For the second round, the PSRM and Zinaida Grecheanyi want to get rid of the label “Moscow’s hand”, while the PL and Dorin Chirtoaca promise , for their part “a mayor for everyone” and a “a capital city for everyone”. In reality, the geopolitical vote in Chisinau on June 28 will reach the highest level possible for the local elections and for the parliamentary elections too.
For the same geopolitical reasons, the pro-European candidates didn’t have chances in the northern capital of the country, Balti, before Renato Usatyi, who owns businesses in Russia. A similar situation is witnessed in the settlements of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia and in a series of northern districts. Instead, for the same reasons, in the Chisinau Municipal Council (CMC), where things calmed down already, the pro-European parties keep the real chance to form a pro-European coalition, while the PSRM does not have a chance to form a majority coalition, at least at theoretical level. For now, the PSRM cannot benefit from the largest number of posts won in the CMC, as it cannot benefit from the largest number of seats it holds in Parliament. Maybe the vote in villages was less geopolitical, but the large centers have always been more influential, numerically and not only. Instead, the expectations that the voters in rural settlements will be influenced by the financial resources spent by the pro-European parties and the pro-Russian ones in different forms, not always in an ‘Orthodox’ way, were met.
The opposition of the left changes position
There were confirmed the forecasts according to which some of the opposition parties will strengthen their positions. Such strengthening was stemmed mainly by the Party of Communists (PCRM), which lost almost 30% of the vote, compared with the local elections of 2011, the biggest ‘slices’ being obtained by the PSRM and PPPN (Our Party). In this connection, we should think about the processes occurring on the political left. Most probably, these are also partially related to the pro-Russian geopolitical option pursued by the PSRM and PPPN, in contrast to the pro-European one. The ‘centrist’ message disseminated by the PCRM lately no longer satisfies a large part of its former supporters. This party will be most probably forced to make a transparent choice between the two options in the near future and to make it public, if it wants to remain with at least a part of its supporters. The favorable option is evident because Vladimir Voronin does not now have chances to win the competition with the ‘impertinent young men’ of the Moldovan politics - Igor Dodon and Renato Usatyi – on their field. Instead, the PCRM has the experience of promoting the European course, with its sympathizers supporting massively this course while it ruled in 2005-2009.
Relative re-positioning on the right
The opposition of the right improved its situation only relatively. The PL achieved better results only in Chisinau and only compared with the parliamentary elections of 2014. Compared with the local elections of 2011, the current results at national level are lower by about 4%. Anyway, the expectation that the PL will at least not lose much to distance itself from governance and from the ruling parties was confirmed. Though it is not yet an accomplished fact, the PL will maintain its control over the capital city because those who voted for the pro-European parties in the first round of the mayoral elections, are expected to vote for Dorin Chirtoaca in the second round, while Zinaida Grecchenyi’s chances are much smaller or even inexistent.
Though it hasn’t been yet registered and didn’t take part in the previous elections, the European People’s Party of Moldova (PPEM), which represented the basis of the electoral bloc with a similar name, garnered votes, but not to the extent to which it could represent an alternative for the current pro-European ruling parties, while the PPEM wants to become exactly such an alternative. For now it managed only to ‘tear away’ some percentage from the Liberal Democratic People’s Party (PLDM), not yet from the Democratic Party (PDM), and to gain slightly more than the about 4% lost by the ‘mother-party’ of Iurie Leanca (PLDM) in the current elections, compared with the local elections of 2011. The PPEM won slightly more in Chisinau, supposedly due to its affiliation to the Civic Platform “Dignity and Truth” (DA), the personal rating of its candidate for the mayoralty Oazu Nantoi, who polled more votes than the electoral block altogether, and to the Liberal Reformist Party, which won 1.5% in the parliamentary elections of last year. Almost nothing was added in the common ‘money box’ of the pro-European parties and the parties of the right. In fact, the preliminary perception is that the about 100,000 pro-European participants in the protests mounted by DA (approximate cumulative figure for all the events staged by the platform) didn’t vote for a particular party together in the June 14 local elections. This means that they either didn’t go to vote or voted in their settlements for non-European parties and candidates suspected of stealing money after chanting in Chisinau ‘we want the stolen billions back’, or all the variants together.
Absenteeism and fragmentation
It was also anticipated that the voter turnout will be lower and it was lower indeed. The absenteeism was about 10% compared with the previous elections. The main reason is the disappointment in the ruling parties – the PLDM and PDM – and also in the PCRM, which helped form a minority government, in particular over the stealing of money from the banking system, the inability to significantly improve living conditions, to promote reforms in the state institutions and to form a majority pro-European coalition, the resignation of the Prime Minister, etc. On the other hand, the absenteeism shows that the population, which is dissatisfied with the performance of the ruling parties, hasn’t yet identified a clear alternative in other political parties. The disappointment refers rather to the whole political class. This hypothesis is confirmed by the low voter turnout among young people, who support primarily the pro-European parties.
This way or another, we are witnessing the continuous fragmentation of the political sector of Moldova, both on the left and on the right, and can consider this a positive phenomenon aimed at reforming the political class, at least in a period of transition, until it does not threaten the internal stability and the country’s development course.
II. Unmet expectations
The expectation that the ruling parties will fail in the local elections was exaggerated. In reality, the PLDM and PDM have the largest number of councilors. The PSRM, which finished third, cannot influence the situation in the country even if it supported by its only ally, the PPPN, which ranked fifth, and even if it can form majority coalitions in a number of settlements, including important ones. The joint result of the PLDM and PDM in the local elections represents a solid basis for creating a majority government coalition and, respectively, for installing a pro-European Cabinet and solving the serious problems faced by society today.
PLDM becomes a more evident leader
The PLDM’s improved score in the June 14 local elections, compared with the previous parliamentary elections, when it ranked second, after the PSRM, was a surprise for many people with ‘pessimistic’ expectations. The PLDM now has the best score among the pro-European parties and in general in the country. The result is even more unexpected if we take into account the fact that the PLDM and its leader Vlad Filat had been the targets of critical, open, massive and long-lasting campaigns staged by civil society, especially the DA, the opponent parties and, indirectly, by some of its partners. The PLDM must yet admit that a part of the criticism is justified, if it cares about its status of leader of the pro-European parties, which it gained in the parliamentary elections, and about the responsibility this status invokes for the state of affairs in government and in the country. The only and biggest failure was witnessed by the PLDM in Chisinau, where it won only two seats of councilor, and was unable to secure a higher percentage for its candidate for the mayoralty Serafim Urechean. It is a warning signal, if we return to the idea about the separate role played by the capital city on the political arena of the country and of ‘barometer’ for the subsequent political processes. They say the PLDM used many unofficial administrative and financial resources. Nevertheless, in the absence of relevant evidence, the election outcome confirms the legitimacy and responsibility of the PLDM at country level. As it was expected and normal, the PLDM initiated consultations to form a new government coalition.
PDM continues to grow
The PDM is in fact the only party that witnessed improvements in the June 14 local elections, if we exclude the political forces that took part in the elections for the first time. The fact in itself is interesting also because the party continues to slowly, but steadily go up, with the trends being important in politics. It’s true that these growths are not proportional to the logistic efforts made and the large financial resources spent by the party, which are greater than of any other election runner, at least during the last two election campaigns. But nobody knows how much the PDM would have slipped without these official and unofficial efforts and finances. The PDM was also the target of severe criticism on the part of society and contestants, but not as severe as in the case of the PLDM, because the criticism was mainly leveled at the PDM’s first deputy chairman Vlad Plahotniuc. As this withdrew from the public sphere, the general repercussions for the party are not so great. An important role is played by the alleged great media potential of Vlad Plahotniuc and the PDM. The leader of the PL Mihai Ghimpu may be right when he says that the PDM ‘converted’ a part of the local elected officials by not exactly ideological ways, giving the example of Straseni district, where the PL’s positions had been so far very solid. This way or another, in the absence of opposite evidence, the PDM continues to hold the right to govern together with the PLDM and to coordinate the country’s development course on the path of European integration. This fact is confirmed by the obtaining, recently, of the status of associate party of the Party of European Socialists, which is the second greatest political force on the continent.
III. Emergencies, responsibilities and dangers
As a result of the local elections, the ruling parties kept the legitimacy of the power they hold, the rights and responsibility for promoting the country’s European course and seem to have avoided the danger of early parliamentary elections. However, this is possible only on particular conditions that need to be immediately fulfilled.
Majority coalition in the country and in Chisinau
The formation of a clear majority pro-European coalition is now the top condition. Of the three possible variants, one must be implemented very quickly and the interest is not only to stabilize the situation in the country, but to also secure the safety of the pro-European parties, including their leaders.
The first variant is to form a broad coalition involving the PLDM, PDM, PCRM and PL. This would bring maximum political stability in the country and would extend the social base of the pro-European option, would exclude the monopolization of power by the parties with many seats and the blackmail on the part of parties with few seats. For now, and at least until the second round of the local elections, this variant is less probable for two reasons.
The first reason: The PCRM hasn’t yet declared its open support for the European support and it’s not known if it does it and when, even if it has the capacity and interest to do it. But the leader of the PCRM Vladimir Voronin already expressed his readiness to have broad discussions, ‘with everyone’s involvement’, going along this path the furthest and admitting that the PCRM could vote for amending the Constitution. Supposedly, Voronin refers also to the most difficult problem generated by the supreme law – the method of electing the head of state. If this problem is solved now, the tensions related to the election of the President in about a year would be diminished and early parliamentary elections would definitely be avoided. Everything depends on the price that Vladimir Voronin can ask. This may not be exaggeratedly high if he understands that after early legislative elections, the problem of the election of the President and the fate of the PCRM and its leader could be dealt with by its great rivals – the ‘traitors’ from the PSRM and the PPPN.
The second reason: The PL repeatedly said that it will not form part of a coalition that will involve the PCRM and it is expected that it will not change its position until June 28, as it will risk losing the mayoralty in Chisinau. The historical experience shows that there are slim chances for the PL will change its position even after it wins the mayoralty. But in this case, this party will have to assume a greater dose of responsibility for not forming the coalition and, respectively, for compromising the European course. In politics, one should not always behave like the ‘gardener’s dog’.
The second variant is to forma a smaller coalition with the involvement of the PLDM, PDM and PL. Here, everything depends on Liberals’ demands, which are known. But the previous answers of the potential partners concerning the European prosecutor, the justice sector reform and other matters are also known. It’s not known if the demands regarding the distribution of the post of head of state and of the administration of the Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure will be maintained. But it’s known that there is one new, very harsh demand – the stolen billions must be restored. In the current conditions, the PLDM and PDM do not have many counterarguments, but the PL should also take into account its situation in the CMC, where it wants and must form that alliance, at local level. Is the PL ready to offer all the parties with which it announced it can form an alliance - the PPEM, PLDM and PDM – by a post of deputy mayor and of district head’s office and to equally divide the posts of division, service and enterprise heads even if these have fewer seats in the CMC? If it does not ensure a consensus in the CMC, it should not expect its interests at country level to be respected. That’s why the processes of forming parliamentary and municipal coalitions must go hand in hand. Otherwise, not only the functioning of the ‘broad coalition’ will be in difficulty. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to create and ensure the functioning of the ‘smaller coalition’ and the PL and the future mayor, if this is Dorin Chirtoaca, will lose the most.
The third variant is to form a pro-European majority coalition in the PLDM-PCRM-PDM format. Forming such a coalition is the easiest variant. With the current number of MPs, it will be able to solve the problem of the election of the President and, respectively, of the early parliamentary elections. But the PCRM hasn’t yet declared it support for the European course and it’s not known when and if it does it. A minority coalition is counterproductive for the country and for the three parties that could find themselves in the situation to announce early elections as soon as possible so as to save what can be saved. The local elections showed that they still have what to save. In a year or two, it could be late for the country’s European course too.
Formation of Government
The formation of the Government and the appointment of the Prime Minister will depend on the majority coalition variant that the political parties and its leaders will choose. Some of the scenarios rumored earlier became outdated, while others are less popular and do not deserve being discussed again.
For example, the variant that the deputy chairman of the PL Dorin Chirtoaca will become Prime Minister is almost unreal. Why should Dorin Chirtoaca and the PL renounce the post of mayor of Chisinau, the budget of the capital city and the important administrative resources is offers in favor of a post that could repeat the fate of Chiril Gaburici, even earlier than in 3-4 months? Owing to the fragility of the future Government, Dorin Chirtoaca could renounce the post of Prime Minister even if he loses the mayoral elections on June 28. Vladimir Voronin’s proposal to name Vasili Chirtoca as Premier is as unreal, not because the PLDM and PDM would claim posts, but because the persons fielded for this post would have again the same fate. Now the post of Prime Minister is the most important one in Moldova, which is a parliamentary republic, according to the Constitution.
IPN analysts “Kroll report: fatal delay”, of April 27, 2015, showed the necessity of returning to the normal, national and international practice, when the informal leaders are also the formal leaders of the country, with all the benefits and responsibilities deriving from this. Surely, only in Moldova the most important decisions are taken by persons and bodies outside the Government and Parliament, while the documents to lease out airports, to sell state-owned banks and nationalize them eventually and to transfer billions of lei in secret, with possible criminal consequences, are signed by intermediaries like Iurie Leanca and Chiril Gaburici. Now they also suggest Vasili Chirtoca and could also suggest other names.
IMF, WB and Kroll 2
Namely the persons possessing most of the instruments of exerting influence, including Vlad Filat and Vlad Plahotniuc, who are said to be deciding everything in this country, must be put in the situation to answer for the successful or unsuccessful relations with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank without which Moldova risks going bankrupt in the most real way, not speaking about the compromising of the European course. The persons of this rank and status must also launch the second stage of the investigation into the stealing of billions of lei, a possible Kroll 2 inquiry. If they do not do it or if they only pretend to be taking actions to return the money and punish those to blame, they should bear the blame themselves. For this to happen, they should also hold the most important posts in the state and any other influence should be classed as illegal.
By the way, the appearance of the Kroll 2 investigation becomes the most probable after the recent revelations made by ex-Premier Ion Sturza, according to whom the scheme to steal money from the Moldovan banks has also authors and beneficiaries from abroad, besides persons holding high-ranking posts in Moldova. But we do not yet know if we must be glad or be sad at such a twist because we do not know if those ’persons holding high-ranking posts’ fear more a people’s revolt than the revenge of international criminal organizations, if things stand as Ion Struza said.
The preliminary results of the mayoral elections in villages, communes, towns and municipalities and the configuration of the second round of voting of June 28 reveal the same trends, emergencies, responsibilities and dangers.
Valeriu Vasilica, IPN
