IPN analysis: The relations between the authorities of Moldova and the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia have been more than full in 2013. At the same time, the communication between the national center and the southern region of the country was marked not by dialogue and cooperation, but by mutual accusations. Will the conflict rhetoric of the sides change next year? Representatives of the civil society of Gagauzia stated their opinions and appraisals for IPN Agency.
Remembering the resonant informational motives in the relations between Chisinau and Comrat this year, we must admit that even if the dialogue was full of events, these were rather negative events. 2013 was the first year of work of the new composition of the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia (PAG), where most of the seats are held by the faction of one of the parties ruling Moldova, which has been permanently in conflict with Governor Mihail Formuzal.
A group of inhabitants of the autonomous region in summer collected over 5,000 signatures in favor of Gagauzia’s right to separate itself from Moldova. Before the Baccalaureate session, the deputies of the PAG refused to implement the Moldovan Education Ministry’s decision to install surveillance cameras in the examination halls. The Governor’s refusal to receive official correspondence from governmental institutions if it’s not translated into Russian also fueled the tensions. Finally, close to yearend, the authorities of Gagauzia announced that they intend to hold a referendum on the country’s foreign policy course and the region’s right to self-determination. Chisinau assessed these intentions from political viewpoint and in terms of their compliance with the legislation.
All these events happened amid a decline in the intensity of the official interaction between the executive bodies of Moldova and the Gagauz autonomous unit. Thus, Iurie Leanca, who was confirmed in the post of Prime Minister at the end of May, went on a working visit to Comrat in only four months. It was the first and for now the last working visit. This made him different from his predecessor Vlad Filat, who paid a much greater attention to the region. The ‘accomplishments’ of other Moldovan officials in this respect are even more evident. President Nicolae Timofti, for example, never visited the region since his appointment.
The reciprocal pretentions and contradictory actions of the sides created an ideal atmosphere for the political forces and representatives of the Gagauz authorities to step up efforts. The local leaders held a record number of news conferences and made a record number of statements and calls, addressed both to the residents of the region and to the country’s central authorities. However, in order to find out how the people in the autonomous unit perceive the dialogue with the official Chisinau, we considered it opportune to ask representatives of the region’s civil society who, unlike the politicians, do not have their own voters and do not run after political dividends. Thus, they can give a more objective picture.
IPN News Agency asked a number of representatives of nongovernmental organizations and the community of experts and public figures of Gagauzia to describe the dialogue between the central authorities and their expectations in this respect next year. It turned out that there are absolutely different opinions about the events taking place in the region – from relatively optimistic to pessimistic and from moderate to radical. We decided to present the whole range of opinions, including those that can seem provocative, based on two reasons: firstly of all it is shown a part of the real state of things in Gagauz society, and secondly, such radical opinions should serve as a landmark showing how the official position of the administration of the region can develop, if radical scenarios happen.
Mihail Sircheli, jurist, head of the NGO “Piligrim-demo” that monitors the election campaigns in the region
Gagauzia suffers from the ‘post-Soviet syndrome’
When speaking about the relations between the autonomous region and the central authorities during the existence of Gagauzia and in 2013 especially, I would not use the term ‘dialogue’. We didn’t see a proper dialogue at official level, between the country’s authorities and those of the region, while the visits paid by the senior state officials to the region, either planned of spontaneous, do not represent components of a dialogue. There is no dialogue at official level, first of all because the central authorities of Moldova don’t have a regular dialogue with the regions and don’t discuss something with them. Gagauzia is not an exception, though it has a special legal status.
If we speak especially about Gagauzia, the central authorities of Moldova didn’t have and do not have a clear strategy for ensuring the functioning of the region with a special status and with distinct powers within a unitary state. Such a strategy does not exist for the simple reason that the political elite of Moldova does not want to transfer to the autonomous unit the powers defined in the Law on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia. The central authorities do not openly say this, but do everything possible for the powers of Gagauzia not to differ from those of other districts. During the last 19 years, since the creation of the autonomous Gagauzia, the central authorities reduced step by step its powers, without discussing something with Gagauzia, either by making amendments to the Law on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia (Gagauz Yeri) or by adopting laws that do not take into account the special status of the autonomous region. Therefore, Gagauzia is unable to use at least one of its powers.
For its part, in Gagauzia there is no: a) clear understanding of the fact that Gagauzia is not an independent state, but only an autonomous region with limited powers; b) wish to realize the fact that Gagauzia is an inalienable part of the Republic of Moldova. The repeated invoking by the Gagauz politicians, in their statements, of Gagauzia’s right to external self-determination if Moldova losses its independence and the setting of a referendum on the deferred status of Gagauzia for February 2, 2014 create the impression that of the provisions of the Law on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia, that concerning the right to external self-determination represents the only precious thing for Gagauzia. It is also seems that everyone in Gagauzia waits and prepares for the day when the autonomous unit will be able to benefit from its right to external self-determination. In this respect, Gagauzia resembles the Soviet Union that was permanently in preparation for the war, but was practically unready to live in peacetime. The ‘post-Soviet syndrome’ of the Gagauz politicians and of the majority of the people in Gagauzia does not enable the region to concentrate on strengthening its status and on exercising its rights. Gagauzia thus prefers two birds in the bush, than one bird in the hand. For the same reason, Gagauzia does not react to the adoption by the central authorities of decisions that affect the autonomous unit’s status.
In the absence of dialogue, the official Chisinau and the autonomous region live with their own conceptions of the status of Gagauzia. But, taking into account the realities, the center can much easier implement its conception than the region.
The center prefers to build the relations with the autonomous unit on a party line rather than through the agency of a dialogue with the region’s authorities. The parties that come to power in Chisinau are trying to create favorable political conjuncture for them in Gagauzia, overlooking thus the necessity of agreeing a dialogue on the region’s status and its powers with the official Comrat. A ‘dialogue’ between Chisinau and Comrat exists when there are representatives of the same political forces in power in the center and in the region. But, in this case, the dialogue is reduced to the fulfillment of the center’s instructions. Another preferred tactic of Chisinau, applied in the relations with Gagauzia when it does not manage to control the situation in the region on a party line, is the tactic based on the ‘divide and rule’ principle that weakens the unity of the autonomous unit’s political elite, exempting the central authorities from the need to establish a dialogue with the autonomous unit on matters concerning the powers and status of the region, given that there is no interlocutor.
The lack of a dialogue between Chisinau and Comrat is confirmed by the autonomous unit’s sabotage of the reforms implemented in the European integration process. Relevant examples are the decision of the PAG to ban the installation of surveillance cameras in Baccalaureate centers and the law against ‘homosexuals’ passed by the PAG in opposition to the national Law on Equality of Chances.
In 2014, we should not expect qualitative changes. The People’s Assembly will continue to adopt decisions that are not within its remit, while Chisinau will continue to pretend that it does not interfere in the political affairs of the region and respects the status of autonomous unit of Gagauzia, enabling and helping it thus to use up the confidence in itself. In this game, which Gagauzia does not control, it can lose a lot, including its most valuable thing – the support of the international community that represents a guarantee for the maintenance of its status of autonomous unit.
Ludmila Mitioglo, head of the Comrat-based European Center “Pro-Europa”
One-player game instead of dialogue
Assessing the relations between Gagauzia and the central authorities, it is obvious that it is harder to formulate the notion of ‘dialogue’ given that the dialogue becomes less evident. The situation in Gagauzia is not quiet. The region is concerned about the maintenance of its statehood. The central authorities, which should look for more successful solutions and offset the negative effects of the events taking place in the region, do not really take steps in this respect.
It is yet good that democratic changes take place in the region, even if they cause a series of problems. If we refer to the mistakes made by Chisinau and Comrat, we can say that each of the sides prefers a one-player game instead of a dialogue, ‘negotiating’ something from time to time. If the authorities do not change this approach, they will themselves deprive the people of confidence in tomorrow and in stability.
I expect that there will be more wisdom in 2014. It’s hard not to make mistakes, but lessons should be learned from the made mistakes. It is also important to realize that a dialogue is needed for the region’s authorities and the central authorities to reach a consensus.
Leonid Dobrov, public person, one of the key figures in the process of constituting the unrecognized Gagauz Republic (1990-1994) and the formation of the Autonomous Unit of Gagauzia
Chisinau learned no lessons from the Transnistrian ‘syndrome’
2013 became a year of rumors about the ‘divorce’ between Moldova and Gagauzia, owing to the ‘permanent harassment of Moldova by Romania” and ‘Moldova’s regular betrayals’ and ‘its desperate love for the EU and Romania’.
The 20th anniversary of Gagauz-Yeri will be celebrated in 2014. A referendum on the ‘separation of Gagauzia from Moldova’ will be held on February 2. The referendum actually centers on the deferred status of Transnistria and on the country’s development course – towards the European Union or the Customs Union. Surely, following the example of Gagauzia, other districts and towns will also start to ‘separate’ themselves – Taraclia, Basarabeasca, Cahul, Cimişlia, Cantemir, Leova, Causeni, Balti, Chisinau and others.
A question arises: why the Gagauz people, who coexisted peacefully with the Moldovans for almost 20 years, decided to raise the question of ‘separation’? The answer is evident: the chiefs from Strasbourg and Bucharest lured the wise men from Chisinau with their eulogistic odes about their ‘success stories’ during over 20 years. These Moldovan Romanians didn’t want to obey the Law on Gagauzia adopted by them in 1994 as, according to them, the Gagauz people can do nothing. This is because the wise functionaries of Moldova during the over 20 years regarded the national minorities, especially the Gagauz, as people of the third grade. The pro-Romania Moldovan rulers didn’t learn any lesson from the Transnistrian ‘syndrome’. They will definitely be able to do this only after they are jailed for a long term for ‘betrayal of the motherland’, after suffering a heavy defeat in the parliamentary elections of 2014-2015.
Alexandru Angheli, political commentator
With hopes ‘reset’
The main problem in the relations between the Gagauz and Moldovan authorities is the fact that the actions of the first were dominated by populism even if they didn’t have efficient solutions, while the latter gave no signs showing that they have a clear strategy concerning the region. In the case of Comrat, such behavior led to uncertainty and often forced the local authorities to comply with the decisions of the central authorities. For the official Chisinau, a consequence of its chaotic and inconsistent actions was the further detachment of Gagauz society. Such a type of interaction could be seen throughout the existence of the Autonomous Unit of Gagauzia, but was more apparent in 2013.
One of the major results of 2013 is the unprecedented intensification of the work of the national political parties in the region. Until recently, the region’s territory was relatively closed for the branches of the Moldovan parties, except for the Communist Party that several years ago had a certain monopoly on the people’s sympathies in region. However, during the last few years, there appeared local offices of the Democratic Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, which are the main components of the ruling alliance. As a result, the political arena of Gagauzia, with certain local particularities, became a field for the national struggle between the power and the opposition. This reduced practically to zero the efforts of the region’s administration to maintain political stability at local level.
In the future, the existing trends will develop. Gagauzia enters 2014 with divided elite and in tense relations with the central authorities owing to the February 2 referendum on the foreign policy course and Gagauzia’s right to self-determination. The coming year is an electoral one. Gagauz society is waiting for the campaigns preceding the legislative elections and the election of a new Governor. It’s thus not worth speaking about the prospects of political stability. On the other hand, the simultaneous holding of elections and the possible replacement of the ruling elites in Chisinau and Comrat give ‘reset’ hopes that should add real effort for solving the existing problems to the bilateral relations, besides the hunt for political dividends.
Survey conducted for IPN by Veaceslav Craciun
