[Info-Prim Neo article from the series “2011: how it was and how it wasn’t”] {“AEI agreement – one year of government” in the opinion of Viorel Cibotaru, political analyst} The principle of equality was a mistake for the alliance. Such types of alliances are not viable from the start as they sooner or later face problems related to the type of resources, the absolutely different number of seats and the different history and traditions. The principle of equality used to divide the three important state posts led to the alliance’s inefficiency, political analyst Viorel Cibotaru said, when asked by Info-Prim Neo to assess the political year 2011 through the agreement on the reconstitution of the AEI. According to the analyst, the ruling alliance managed however to achieve results. It ensured a minimum that prevented things from degenerating into deeper crises. It succeeded in avoiding economic crises and in ensuring a current management of affairs in the country, even if it did not meet the expectations and did not achieve the set objectives. Viorel Cibotaru said the phrase “concrete alliance’ that the AEI leaders used after the alliance was formed was a kind of trick for the people to perceive this coalition as one that is based on cohesion, but this cohesion did not exist. “There was a difference of interests and a stiff internal fight on every segment of the legislative activity and the governmental activity. There were serious fights in the media, the public space. A competition thus continued and this competition was perceived as of major importance,” said the analyst. He believes that the alliance has never been close to dismemberment, as they often implied. “There were too many emotions and practically no arguments. All the discussions about watermelons and other fruit and vegetables pointed only to a kind of blackmail. These things had certain media effects, but never created situations for dismemberment,” said Viorel Cibotaru. He also said that even if discussions existed between Vlad Filat and Vladimir Voronin, they were more than political maneuvers and could not lead to the re-formation of the alliance for a number of reasons. “There were no serious reasons for this alliance to disappear as there were no alternatives and elements of formal dismemberment,” stated Viorel Cibotaru. He stressed that the AEI agreement is in a fact a paper containing a number of untruths. “First of all, the attempt to share the bear’s fur, i.e. the post of President, was a fatal mistake as one cannot share what they do not have in politics. Ghimpu’s complaints are less relevant,” said Viorel Cibotaru. He referred to the fact that the Liberal leader Mihai Ghimpu often said the chairman of the PLDM Vlad Filat occupied the seat of Prime Minister and is not interested in the election of the head of state. Asked if another form of government that a coalition government can be better for Moldova, the analyst said the multiparty principle is a constitutional principle of an efficient democracy. “One party cannot govern Moldova. The non-ruling parties also take part by criticism and approaches. I think a multiparty system is better than a coalition,” said Viorel Cibotaru. On December 30, it is one year since Marian Lupu, Vlad Filat and Mihai Ghimpu signed the agreement on the reconstitution of the Alliance for European Integration. [Irina Turcanu, Info-Prim Neo]