Corneliu Gurin: A number of laws in 2012 were adopted under external pressure

{Info-Prim Neo interview with the expert of the Association for Participatory Democracy ADEPT Corneliu Gurin, of the series “Year 2012 in Moldova’s and Moldovans’ life”, article No. 7 of 12 [originally published on December 21]} [– How was 2012 as regards the legislative process? What distinguishing features did it have compared with the previous periods? What two successful laws have been adopted this year? What about unsuccessful ones? Did the authorities make mistakes when working out the legal framework?] – If we divide things into good and bad, 2012 can be considered rather good as regards the legislative process. Though with many delays and inconsistencies and under external pressure rather than with sincere internal will, a number of new laws were passed in 2012. There were drafted and adopted important amendments for certain sectors and areas of activity. Among the laws that determined the reformation of important institutions, I would mention the legislative package of anticorruption reforms, especially those that concern the transformation of the Center for Combating Corruption and Economic Crime into the National Anticorruption Center, and the legislative package of reforms in justice, or the so-called ‘small reform’ in justice. The adoption of the Law on Guaranteeing of Equality on May 25 was a very important step. This law is designed to ensure the implementation of the communitarian directives and European standards on the prevention and combating of discrimination and ensuring of equality in different spheres of life. It will come into force on January 1, 2013 and its effects cannot be assessed, especially because the process of constituting the council that will monitor the implementation of this law and will punish those who are culpable is delayed. But the correct and complex implementation of the new regulations will have a considerable impact on the persons who in the 21st century are still subject to discrimination practices that affect their personality and dignity, or even their daily life. [– A number of laws adopted this year, among which the Law on Guaranteeing of Equality to which you referred, provoked different reactions. How do these reactions influence the atmosphere in society?] – The Law on Guaranteeing of Equality, which was initially called the Antidiscrimination Law, covered a rather difficult path and was adopted rather by force, before a number of Moldova-EU meetings where Moldova was to report on the fulfillment of the earlier commitments and where a decision was to be taken as regards the switch to a new phase of implementing the visa liberalization action plan. Even if other counties also met with opposition to similar regulations, the Moldovan authorities were to learn from other states’ mistakes and experience and not to allow the situation to become tense for unjust reasons. I think the protests against the antidiscrimination regulations were generated by several problems: [a)] First of all, it should be noted that the process of promoting the law was managed incorrectly and the people were not sufficiently informed about it. In the countries that joined the EU, the given problems have been discussed for a long period of time. There were carried out information campaigns and long debates that showed and even determined an increased level of tolerance of the minority groups in society or moral and religious problems; [b)] The irresponsible and even provoking attitude of the representatives of some political parties, including of the ruling alliance, who even before the appearance of the bill tried to discredit the idea and even said that they are against the new regulations, without realizing the essence of the problem, and without discussing it seriously. I think such a situation was due to the fact that the possibility of early legislative elections at that stage wasn’t fully excluded and certain political parties didn’t want to damage their image in the possible campaign. But, employing the tactic of ignorance and provocation, the given parties showed that they do not have a European and responsible behavior and do not have modern views on certain problems concerning the basic human rights; [c)] The involvement of religious organizations and public persons who, instead of tolerant and humane behavior, used the tactic of provocation and ignorance, substituting the real goals promoted by law through hysteria, insinuation and invented objectives; [d)]The lack of sufficient communication at the level of the parties of the Alliance for European Integration and the lack of discussions on these subjects with the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition. The examples of the foreign states show that the antidiscrimination legislation or the legislation in other sensitive areas was promoted only when there was clearly established political consensus. The given causes made the situation in society tense to a certain extent, but we see that things calmed down. This shows that the problems were mainly invented. But in the future, the made mistakes should be taken into account and the dealing with important problems should be preceded by serious preparations. We hope that the authorities and the political parties understood this and will adopt relevant approaches. [– To want extent are the laws passed in 2012 Euro-compliant? What is the merit and responsibility of the Moldovan authorities and development partners in this respect? ] – From technical aspect, some of the laws passed in 2012are compliant with the EU legislation. Some of them even are designed to ensure the implementation of the communitarian aquis in the national legislation. The official merit belongs to the authorities that drafted and adopted the given laws, but the merit for their promotion cannot belong only to the authorities. The EU intuitions, the development partners and international organizations exerted a special influence. However, the NGOs, civil society, the media and the democratic and European opposition parties also play a considerable role in promoting new regulations. Even if there wasn’t a ‘common front’, the internal pressure moved things on. This shows that we move towards building a society with authentic, participative democracy. [– How were the norms adopted by the legislature in 2012 implemented, especially those concerning the European integration. How much political will and professional capacity shows the government in general and Parliament in particular? ] – The adoption of laws is a theoretical and formalized thing and a creative activity. That’s why there is a romantic approach in this respect – we will adopt laws and will live better. On the other hand, in opinion polls most of the people say that the law functioning mechanism must be improved. Thus, the people feel that the adopted laws do not produce the necessary results. The implementation of the new regulations is possibly the most important problem as it shows not only political will in promoting reforms, but also the existing administrative capacities for implementing them and the existence of socioeconomic preconditions for the quasi-general acceptance of the new approaches. Unfortunately, as regards the implementation of the laws, the Moldovan authorities haven’t been efficient and allowed seriously deviations from the EU standards and even from the democratic standards. The political and group interest always prevailed. The efficiency and impetuosity of reforms were sacrificed so as to promote these interests and many of the mistakes made earlier weren’t rectified. More serious is yet the fact that they avoid recognizing the problems and mistakes. They try to justify any decision and attitude, including the serious errors that affect the image of the public institutions and event the country’s image at home and abroad. [– How did the government and political opposition fulfill their duties in the legislative process, each of them apart and together? ] – The Government and the opposition were stubborn to promote their own positions and there was no political cooperation for the country’s interests. The ruling alliance ignored the opposition, regardless of the sectors it represented: the left, the center, the right, the parliamentary or extra-parliamentary opposition, the pro-European or pro-Eastern one. At the same time, the extreme left opposition started to promote ideas that were fully opposed to the European integration idea. Society was divided, including because of the political antagonisms. The European integration idea was affected by this situation and lost supporters. The government and the opposition are to blame for this situation, but the government is more responsible because its task is to strengthen society and to show democratic behavior. [– How can the legislative framework of Moldova be characterized? ] –Moldova’s legislation is being improved, but needs to be seriously strengthened by institutional mechanisms and a multitude of resources that would ensure the efficiency of the regulations and their proper implementation. It better nit to adopt a given law than not to apply the adopted law as the non-implementation of the laws stimulates legal nihilism and favors the discrediting of democratic institutions and the diminution of the people’s confidence in the state institutions. [– What prospects will 2013 offer as regards the Europeanization of the legislative process and implementation of European laws? ] – The Moldovan authorities must take steps to eliminate the legislative and normative drawbacks in the process of implementing the justice sector reform strategy, the national anticorruption strategy, the national security strategy, the visa liberalization action plan, and the plan of action for implementing the EU recommendations for instituting the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, the plan of action for honoring Moldova’s commitments to the Council of Europe, the national plan of action on human rights, the strategy for developing civil society, etc. In order to achieve the objective of signing the Association Agreement with the EU, we will have to show determination in implementing the laws adopted earlier. In this respect, the parliamentary hearings should be improved and made more effective so that they contribute to increasing the responsibility of the institutions empowered to implement the law. The shortcomings in the implementation of legislation must be treated with maximum seriousness and at a very high level. There are many objectives that must be achieved, including at legislative level. The Parliament of Moldova should restore the normal work conditions and, after the Parliament Building is reconstructed, should make effort to make the legislative work more efficient and transparent. Regretfully, the authorities in 2012 didn’t do much to ensure order and transparency in the Parliament’s activity and will have to correct things in this area next year. [Mariana Galben, Info-Prim Neo ]