AIE has died a good death. Long live A! Info-Prim Neo analysis, part I

Many political assessments have been made as to the results achieved by the present administration one year after the early parliamentary elections of July 2009 and of the creation of the Alliance for European Integration (AEI) on August 8, 2009. In general, those who criticized the ruling coalition and those who praised it are right because it is normal for a Government to have accomplishments and failures. The important thing is what the purpose of the governors was – to see the glass half full or half empty. Generally speaking, the full glass means the avoidance of the economic and social collapse at a time when countries with incomparably higher political and economic potential faced serious social and economic problems, especially owing to the world crisis. Some of the foreign experts say Moldova’s economy stabilized and this aspect shouldn’t be neglected. The empty glass means the unlocking of the political situation during a year, without too many additional chances of overcoming it even if the referendum on the procedure for electing the head of state takes place and produces the result projected by the government coalition. This means danger of making the political instability permanent with serious consequences for the social and economic sectors. But, this is not a novelty as a political force comes to power in order to solve certain problems and avoid others that cannot be solved. Another force that can solve them or the same force comes and persuades the people that it still can and this is the essence of democracy. More important is the fact that the year that passed pointed to the necessity and possibility of governing Moldova by political coalition, after a long period during which only one party ruled the country. This year showed that Moldova can be governed under a democratic regime with compromises and pluralism, where the interests of many groups of people represented by the parties that entered the Parliament are respected. In fact, this is a sign that the country started to Europeanize as all the democratic European countries are governed by coalitions. This conclusion can be extrapolated to the period in power of the AEI, which {de facto} has died, even if {de jure} it may live by the end of 2010. This is because the Parliament controlled by the AEI will work after the summer vacation for a very short period of time as it will enter the campaign for the early legislative and presidential elections, when it will not be able and will not have the right to adopt important documents for the country’s fate and for the own fate. The Government will soon become interim so that the AEI’s term in power is almost over. Looking from this angle, it will be useful to follow the somehow optimistic development of the coalition format of the current democratic government, following the failure of the Alliance for Democracy and Reform (ADR) 10 years ago. The AEI existed and resisted for a year despite gloomy forecasts and internal and external dangers and risks. This view could be useful to a future Alliance (A) if not the current AEI. [External dangers and forecasts] The gloomiest forecasts were made by the Communists Party (PCRM), which is the main and only parliamentary opposition party. “The non-constituted political body” is the mildest description used by the PCRM for the AEI. The greatest external danger threatening the government coalition came from the PCRM. It was a real and very serious danger not because the PCRM worked massively and professionally to achieve its objective to create a negative image for the AEI among its sympathizers and in the society in general. The Communists did not attend the sitting of the Parliament in order to make it nonfunctional and hinder the governance. It seems that not even one year after the Constitutional Court validated the results of the July 29, 2009 elections did the PCRM recognize the legitimacy of the new power, waiting for its fall. The AEI did not react to this attitude and the time will show if it was right. This danger will have its effect only after the expected early parliamentary and presidential elections. It might also hit the PCRM, which did not take part in decision-making in the Parliament and in the country during a year, the components of the current AEI or the future A. From outside, the AEI had to deal with the dangers posed by the world crisis with Moldovan particularities, the lack of financial resources for elementary needs and predictable pressure exerted by certain international players involved in the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict. The components of the government coalition coped with these challenges in different ways owing to their different approaches to the problems. [Internal dangers and risks] However, the greatest risks and dangers for the government coalition were provoked by the alliance itself. Most of them will threaten the future coalitions as well, will influence their viability. The AEI has been harassed from inside by the personal, hidden or open, rivalries of the leaders and staffs of the member parties. They not always knew or were able to maintain a balance between the interests of the alliance and of the own parties. A number of these shortcomings can be blamed on the deficit of political culture, including experience of working as part of a government coalition. Sales, betrayals and political migration inside the alliance were tolerated and stimulated and its existence was under threat. Some of the parties behaved like being superior and holding absolute power. It is democratic for a party member to be able to leave the party and join another. But the interests of a government coalition should regulate and even limit this right according to the rule: “anyone has the right to defect from the party, but nobody can be accepted into the parties that are coalition partners until the coalition exists”. The acceptance means the {de facto} destruction of the coalition, which will be punished by the voters. [Rules of game for government coalition] These and other dangers and risks could have been and will be avoided if the components of the AEI adopted clear, detailed and public rules of the game. During the year, the Agency Info-Prim Neo asked for many times the AEI leaders about the necessity and content of a regulation that would govern the interaction inside the Alliance. Such a document appeared ultimately, but probably too late and was not published and promoted. The way in which this document was drafted and adopted shows that all or most of the political players of the AEI were not interested to have exact, clear and public rules of the game. Why so? Did they know they will anyway not be able to respect them? An interaction regulation for a coalition is as important as the Government Program. It should even form part of this program. The public character of the document would have ensured greater sincerity and responsibility inside the alliance and the alliance would have been more responsible before the people. The rules of the game would have defined the mechanisms for constituting, running and dismembering the AEI. The dismemberment of the alliance should be also announced officially, for the sake of its member parties and the future alliances and in order not to confuse the voters. [The next parts of the analysis “AIE has died a good death. Long live A!” will focus on the AEI’s sources of existence.” Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]