What is the widest “red line” crossed by the Moldovan authorities? Why should the words “opposition” and “conflict” be regarded differently? What resemblances in the field of systemic interests can bring the current political opponents closer until the ruling coalition is formed after the parliamentary elections? What signs are given by the new electoral system to the opposition parties? What positive moments can be found in the not at all simple pre-electoral situation in Moldova? Should the Transnistrian conflict settlement be hastened or not? The answer to these and other questions can be found in the interview given by the former EU Special Representative for the Republic of Moldova Kalman Mizsei to Valeriu Vasilică.
----
- What do you think about the interminable dispute between two EU institutions and the Moldovan authorities over the situation in the country, where one side says the situation is bad, while another side says everything is fine? What interests and consequences can such positions hide?
- There is no doubt that democracy in Moldova worsened in quality. The European Union categorically does not accept this and, first of all, the annulment of the local mayoral elections in the capital city, Chisinau. This is definitely the widest “red line” crossed by the Moldovan authorities because the European norms were violated without scruple. There are also other discrepancies that cause the European partners’ disapproval.
- What is the significance of the interminable confrontation between the government and the President? How harsh, veritable and dangerous for Moldovan society this conflict is?
- Following Moldovan politics from outside, I reached the conclusion that the meaning of the words “opposition” and “conflict” should be modified slightly because, on the one hand, there is the parliamentary opposition represented by the Liberal Democratic Party and the Party of Communists and there is authentic influential opposition represented by the parties led by Maia Sandu and Andrei Năstase. On the other hand, there is the Democratic Party and the Party of Socialists. Currently, the line of demarcation between the power and the opposition goes through the approach to the quality of democracy, the rule of law, corruption. Between the Democrats and the Socialists, more exactly between Mister Plahotniuc (president of the Democratic Party – e.n.) and President Dodon, there is very close cooperation. There are also divergences, probably because this conflict is manifested by contraposition between the power and the President, but this is not a real conflict, but a mimicked one as the divergences are limited and the interests coincide at the moment.
- Against such a background, how would the ruling alliance after the elections of next February look like, involving the Democrats and, as you said, the “authentic opposition” - between the Democrats and Socialists or between the Socialists and the “authentic opposition”?
- I think the second is the most probable variant as I said that the interests of the PDM and PSRM coincide and these interests are systemic. The Democrats and the Socialists give priority to limited democracy and, generally, to a style of traditional authoritarian relations between the power and society. On the other hand, Sandu and Năstase embody the model of the rule of law, which is transparency of the state mechanisms, supremacy of the law. These two camps are incompatible. Therefore, it is much easier to imagine a PDM-PSRM coalition, if the opposition does not win the elections overwhelmingly. But it is hard to anticipate with precision the election results as polls until now made rather major mistakes, like in the case of the elections in Chisinau, for example. This shows the public is not ready or does not want to say what it will do on the election day.
- How would you assess the situation before the elections set for February 24, 2019?
- Firstly, the opposition parties should realize that the new electoral system forces them to cooperate between them and this is aspect should be taken into account before the elections. Secondly, this system is activated as a private business. But besides the multiple drawbacks, it has two positive moments that should be recognized. The first point is: the Government’s efficiently has increased. The second point is: centralized corruption means fewer daily barriers faced by companies. But there is also the third point: cooperation with the European Union and the development of programs supported by the EU help the public to be more attentive and better understand how the contemporary Western states work and to learn new techniques. That’s why I think that when preconditions are created, veritable reformation of the state based on the rule of law will be achieved swiftly.
- What do you think about the Transnistrian conflict given the current state of the relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol and the relations between the components of the 5+2 format talks, in particular Ukraine and Russia? What are the conflict settlement prospects?
- Really interesting things happen in this area. I believe a lot in the logic of small steps. I initiated this approach, if you remember, in 2007, together with my consultants - Peter Mihalko, currently Head of the European Union Delegation to Moldova, and Mindaugas Kacerauskas. I advised the then President Vladimir Voronin that we should follow the path of building confidence between the two banks of the Nistru.
The given conflict is geopolitical in character as the political subjects are solved to the extent to which Russia allows. That’s why slow progress is made in conflicts of such a kind. However, the confidence building processes initiated then started to work powerfully during the past two years. In fact, particular results were achieved earlier too, like those related to the use of railways. But the current accomplishments are much greater, like in the field of infrastructure, related to the issuing of license plates for motor vehicles, etc. It is very good that the Association Agreement with the EU and the Free Trade Agreement take the enterprises located on the left side into account. All these are wonderful things and we can now say that Ukraine has fewer illusions concerning Russia in the 5+2 format. Even if the representatives of Ukraine were special earlier too, now the interests of Ukraine coincide mainly with Moldova’s interests and this is good. I think the EU could also devote more attention to projects to reunify the two banks.
During my stay in Moldova, I said that to accelerate the reunification, Moldova from the right side of the Nistru should be more attractive and inclusive for the population from the Transnistrian region, which implies better management of Moldova, respect for the supremacy of the law, etc.
It’s true that the situation concerning the Transnistrian conflict settlement is now better and this is wonderful, but time is needed to find solutions acceptable to everyone at political level. I don’t think this process should be forced artificially. The cooperation between the two banks should extend, the management, the economic situation and living standards in Moldova should improve and we will then be closer to the qualitative settlement of this conflict.
