Info-Prim Neo Agency continues the series of analyses of the performance of the Parliament of Moldova of the sixteenth legislature initiated on Monday, March 9. This retrospective investigation could help the voters select the best election contender that they would like to see in the new Parliament as their representative, but might also offer the possibility of forming a general opinion about the configuration of the next Legislative. In particular, it could help the voters decide whether they want or not that the model of the 2005-2009 Parliament is reedited or modified and how. [Parliamentary Ostricamel or several distinctive features of the majority coalition] One of the conclusions of the previous part was that the Parliament didn’t control the Government in any way, refusing the legal responsibilities put on it. Therefore, there appeared a discrepancy between the relatively good quality of the legislative process on the one hand and the much lower quality of the people’s life on the other hand. This discrepancy shows that in reality the Parliament did not control the situation in the country. The fewer merits the Legislative has in this respect, the more responsibilities it has compared with other powers in the state. At the same time, the majority faction controlled very well the situation inside the Parliament during the four years. The previous Parliaments, except that of 2001-2005, when the PCRM had the constitutional majority, ended the mandate broken and exhausted, with dozens of turncoat MPs moving from a faction to another, the current Parliament maintained the ratio of forces between the majority coalition and the Opposition almost constantly. The PPCD sustained losses but not large enough to disappear as faction, while the PCRM kept its unity intact. Much is said about the rather unparliamentarily methods by which this unity was maintained in factions, but until the violation of the legislation is not proven, the unity seems to be a merit of the majority factions rather than the Opposition. It is much more relevant for examining the stability of the cooperation relations between the two majority factions – the PCRM and the PPCD. For the first time in the parliamentary history of the independent Moldova, the extremes of the Moldovan political arena formed a majority coalition – the left-wing PCRM with a mainly internationalist, pro-Russia and anti-Romania message and the right-wing PPCD with a primarily nationalist, anti-Russia and pro-Romania message. Prince Dimitrie Cantemir in his allegorical tale “The Hieroglyphic History” coined a perfect term for such phenomena – Ostricamel, a ridiculous, half-ostrich and half-camel creature. The experts would be interested to study the reasons that encouraged this alliance that looks unordinary at first sight. The PCRM did not have the experience of cooperation with other political parties on the basis of a compromise and gave the impression that it was not able to cooperate in such a way. The logic of this party’s actions can be explained by the saying “who is not with us is against us”. But the PPCD had the experience of cooperation and a number of alliances, which it broke from inside after achieving its goal or maybe that was its goal. So, the incompatibility of incompatibilities became compatible. Moreover, the rapprochement between them was rather a law than an accident. Why? [Enemies – friends] First of all because the two political parties are neither political enemies nor political rivals. Their segments of voters are far from each other and cannot interest or overlap each other as it happens on the Liberal pole for instance. Those that have a PCRM-like message cannot aim to attract ordinary voters with a PPCD-like message and vice versa. But they also are not afraid that their voters could take the other side. In Moldova, serious political wars are fought between the parties that have similar messages or even doctrines. Everything that the PPCD did, marching with the placard “Down with the Communists” along the streets during many years was aimed at keeping its own electorate awake and mobilized as numerically it has always been close to the limit of the election threshold. What the PCRM has done until present in relation with the PPCD was aimed at threatening its own electorate with the danger of Romanianism, also in order to keep it awake and mobilized. After that, the PCRM and PPCD understood that what they should do was not to criticize each other or, better, to present each other in a favorable light. And they did this and the media resources they own helped them in this respect. The two parties have a tough discipline and authoritarian leaders that can come to an understanding, and Vladimir Voronin and Iurie Rosca did so. It is said that the two leaders make considerable effort to maintain discipline in the party and on the political line, the slaps and punches being the most childish methods. Both of them showed capacities for political cynicism and the switch from one doctrine to another, from an orientation to another, from a political promise to another, from a statement to another, absolutely contradictory statement are cases from the real political career of the two. The PCRM and PPCD say that this partnership is in the name and the interests of the country that other political organizations are unable to protect. The PCRM and PPCD always see exponents of the enemies of the country’s interests, usually from outside or even direct enemies, in other political parties. One party finds these enemies in Romania, the other one in Russia. The political opponents describe this style as authoritarian, non-Democratic, intolerant and dangerous because it is unpredictable. The opponents also say that this human-style is met only in some of the former Soviet countries, and in the Arabic or African world. It has nothing in common with the chances and pro-European expectations of the Moldovans. But does the voter of the 2009 model can and want to decide which of the two camps of opponents is right? What kind of policy and politicians they need personally to have Europe at home and what responsibility they are ready to bear for another mistake in elections? Maybe they will better understand the behavior of the old Parliament and the forces that should represent them in the new Parliament. The next part of the analysis “Parliament … is dead! Long live the Parliament!” will focus on other parliamentary groups.