The European institutions differently interpret the political realities in Georgia and Moldova, at least from the perspective of the problems invoked by civil society, political pundit Dionis Cenușa noted in a feature article for IPN Agency.
So, the evidence and criticism of the influence of oligarchic groups on justice and the capture of Moldovan state institutions find a detailed reflection in the European legislature’s approaches. The approach in the case of Georgia is completely different, stated the politologist.
He considers the lack of progress in investigating cases of political corruption or the shortcomings in the functioning of the prosecution service are taken into account. But there is no illustration of civil society’s concerns about the appearance of signals of “state capture” under the influence of Ivanishvili, who exerts influence on the judiciary and infiltrates loyal persons into the public sector.
In the most recent document adopted by the European Parliament, the cases of media attacks and campaigns to discredit the leaders of critical NGOs (Transparency International Georgia, October 24, 2018) are overlooked, but in a similar document on Moldova, adopted the same day, the situation of civil society is described and assessed in a critical way.
A duality increasingly noticeable in the way in which the European institutions treat Georgia and Moldova. This can be due to the poor realization of the democratic backsliding witnessed now in Georgia owing to the effects of previous reforms that are still felt in Georgia and appreciated in Brussels (“good pupil of the class”).
Contrary to the visible sympathy with the Caucasian state, the attention for Moldova is maximized, but in a fully negative context (“bad pupil of the classic”) owing to the series of nondemocratic steps by which Vladimir Plahotniuc wants to perpetuate his political power, commented Dionis Cenușa.
Unlike the Moldovan oligarch, Ivanishvili enjoys a high level of credibility at home and abroad that was obtained as a result of the parliamentary elections based on the mixed electoral system in 2012 and, respectively, in 2016.
The signals transmitted by the Georgian NGOs, even if mainly inside the country for now, reveal serious politicization of institutions, first of all of the law enforcement agencies. Their warnings deserve attention now so as to prevent the degradation of the political situation in Georgia. The EU should be more courageous in objectively assessing Ivanishvili’s governance, taking into account the fact that his legitimacy was won based on the mixed electoral system, whose introduction in Moldova is condemned, concluded the expert.
