April 7 events in the context of Moldova’s Independence at its 18th anniversary. Info-Prim Neo interview with Sergiu Ostaf

{The April 7 protests that resulted in acts of violence, including clashes between the protesters and the police, human victims and destruction of the buildings of the Parliament and the Presidential Office, constituted the most prominent evens this year and, perhaps, one of the rarest and memorable events in Moldova’s period of independence. Paradoxically, the events were not treated as such by the political class and the society. The survey on the April 7 events initiated by the news agency Info-Prim Neo among leaders of political parties of different orientations and of the civil society aims to diagnose the quality of Moldova’s Independence at its 18th anniversary and of the society in general and to find answers to the question “what should we do next?” This time, the questions are answered by the Sergiu Ostaf, the head of the Resource Center for Human Rights (CReDO).} [– What did the April 7 events represent for Moldova’s Independence: a rule or an exception?] – The April 7 events are not a simple coincidence. Most probably, it was a phenomenon and some of its elements could be forecast. It is not yet a rule as it consists of a number of repetitive and consistent similar or comparative events. In the narrow meaning of the word, the April 7 events represented: a) a mass public rally by an important segment of people (over 30,000) held to protest against the results and the way in which the April 5 elections were conducted, b) the presence of peaceful (the most numerous one) and violent segments at the rally that ended with the vandalizing of the buildings of the Parliament and partially the Presidential Office, c) the response by the police and law enforcement bodies at the rally and the actions that followed, especially the arrests, use of force and the ill-treatment of some of the participants. The following could have been predicted: the peaceful public rally, though not of such a scale; the general disagreement with the way of holding the elections and a part of the people’s disagreement with the election outcome; the limited use of force and the arrests made by the police and law enforcement bodies, though not of such a scale . The most important thing is that the peaceful rallies are positive and necessary for cultivating the civic commitment in the society (the public protests compensate for the lack of adequate access to mass media to express one’s opinion). It was hard to predict the mass violence and the destruction of the buildings as well as the use of force and the mistreatment of the protesters at night or outside the rally. In the recent past, the public demonstrations were peaceful and there were few and rare examples of aggressiveness. At the same time, the police had enough troops and equipment to prevent the worsening of the situation. In the broad meaning of the word, the April 7 events represented: a) the behavior of the ruling party and the Opposition (including political figures), b) the behavior of the mass media, c) the behavior of the civil society engaged in the promotion of democratic values. As expected, the ruling party incited the crowd. It used a virulent language (showing that it lacks political culture) and did not resort to a dialogue with the protesters. The Opposition’s efforts to talk with the protesters were inefficient. It met with impediments and had limited possibilities (the lack of access to appropriate audio equipment). Predictably, the public mass media served the ruling party, while the organized civil society acted courageously and as expected, though its efforts had a limited impact. [– Why the violent clashes, acts of vandalism, human victims and other blamable conducts could not be avoided?] – The ruling party allowed vandalizing the buildings, as it was admitted in public. The destruction of the buildings could have been avoided, if the law enforcement bodies had acted firmly, prudently and professionally in the public interests and had not obeyed the ruling party. The brutality and violation of the rights of the detained and arrested protesters (access to medical services, access to a lawyer, a fair remedy) could have been mostly avoided (some of the cases were inevitable regretfully), if the administration (the government authorities and the managers of decentralized and specialized units) of the law enforcement bodies acted impartially, in the public interests, with full responsibility and professional prudence, and would not have been influenced politically. The law enforcement bodies should repress the violence discreetly, maximally reduce the incidents and cultivate the people’s trust through dialogue and communication. Regrettably, they did not do this. If steps had been taken impartially and in the public interests (and the administration of the law enforcement bodies had opposed the influence exerted by the politicians), even if the professional capacity and the equipment were insufficient, we would have had an entirely different result. A part of the aggressive elements at the protests could not have been avoided as such occurrences are typical of mass disorders. However, the substantial aggressiveness could have been avoided and reasonably controlled by such actions as: a) the politicians from the ruling party and the Opposition could communicate with the protesters (with the help of audio equipment and other tools), b) the police could have a constructive dialogue and negotiation with the protesters by taking prudent and professional steps to reduce the risk of provocations, isolating discreetly the aggressive persons and groups and using, if need be, the specialized equipment to clam things down and disperse the violent groups. Unfortunately, no appropriate measures to reduce aggression were taken. [– Why the causes of these events weren’t probed and the results weren’t published even five months afterward?] – The investigation of the April 7 events is a long-term process that requires effort and an appropriate framework. Representatives of different social groups that enjoy public support and are impartial must be involved in this process. International technical support and the experience of similar investigations are needed. The presidential commission mandated to investigate the April 7 events did not meet these conditions. [– What lessons the independent Moldovan should learn from the April 7 events?] – In general, the society suffered defeat after the April 7 events. The results are unfavorable for the society. Here are only some of the results: 1) vandalized buildings, 2) suffering and bodily injuries caused to the hundreds of civilians and to police officers, 3) the greater distrust in the state institutions, especially the law enforcement bodies, the legal system (the investigation of the brutalities, arrests, etc.), 4) the greater distrust in the political players who irresponsibly maximize the personal interests to the detriment of the public interests, 5) cultivation of fear by repressive acts, 6) Moldova’s image as regards the democratization and assimilation of the European values was damaged, 7) the business and investment climate became more unstable, 8) the society was extremely polarized at multiple social levels (ethnic, social, age, views), etc. After the April 7 events we ascertained that the democratic institutions are rather fragile and that their authority is undermined and neglected. The political class should learn to act in the public interests as the maximization of the personal interests can have consequences hard to overcome. The police should learn that the public image and the society’s trust are won by professionalism and impartiality. The society will have to ho through a reconciliation process where the establishment of the truth is critical, but this truth is needed first of all for reconciliation, not repression.