Moldova’s political regime starts to look like a sultanic one – Igor Munteanu

[How do you see the social-political state of affairs in Moldova two years after the Parliamentary elections of 6 March 2005?] It is quite calm, but politically and socially unstable. During the last two years Moldova connected to several important regional processes by signing the Action Plan Moldova-EU, Individual Action Plan Moldova-NATO, but these actions were not sufficiently convincing in what concerns the internal progress of Moldova. This fact refers to the political reform (justice, political pluralism, freedom of expression, territorial reunification), as well as to the economic reform (bureaucratic rigidity and interference of the state in economy, creation of discriminatory conditions for the business environment). The quality of the government is declining, administrative abuses continue, and the numerous programmes termed by the authorities strategic either remain drafts or are used in the electoral campaigns. Meanwhile, the really important tasks for the economic growth and territorial integrity of the country are thrown into the shade or are ignored because of a political regime which starts to bear resemblance to a “sultanic” regime (in Alfred Stepan’s definition), where a single decision-making pole exists and the rest of the institutions are simply decorative. [- What were the most notable positive and negative aspects of the government and of the opposition during the last two years?] I believe that it is very hard to draw a concrete line dividing the opposition and government in Moldova, thus I would rather avoid picturing the present political options in black-and-white terms, so I will use more delicate distinctions. For example, is the “opposition” partaking in intense consultations with the executive authorities or not, and if yes, to what extent is it responsible for the errors and achievements of the government?! Or, to what extent is the “opposition” a political group which makes only proposals, without having the slightest chance to influence the political process? I think we can judge politicians by their deeds and words. After the vote of April 4, a part of the opposition engaged in a “constructive” dialogue with the government, and the other party is constantly accusing of infamy the authors of this arrangement. I believe that the elections of 2005 have stimulated important specifications over the direction that the society is following – EU, granting to the state a role it can not master yet. The phrase “modernisation of the country” has become very popular lately, but there are few discussions about its semantic meaning. Do we want a liberal modernisation, a “minimalist state”, or an “assistentialist” one, with unclear roles, but certainly based on the Communists Party’s resentments about the market economy and western individualism? Modernisation can be carried out in both directions, but their results will oppose each other, fact which explains in a way the failures the government can not hide anymore, even if it arrogates “undeserved” achievements (larger state budgets or currency stability). [- What are the benefits that the population received during the last two years due to the political configuration in the Parliament?] Not too many, because the configuration created after April 4 was the result of the decisions made by the political parties, and not the consequence of the voters’ conscience. However, it did not lose too much as well, because the largest part of the population learned how to earn their money, regardless of the way politicians act; important social categories have already left the country or are choosing between seasonal migration and permanent immigration… Given this situation, it is clear that the interest for politics is poor. [- Do you think that significant changes can occur in the configuration of the Parliament and society on the whole by the end of this mandate? How could these changes look like?] Speaking about the present mandate of the parliament, I consider that the proportions of the political body will remain to a great extent the same, but we must also take into consideration the effect of “shifts” and the continuous crumbling of the parliamentary groups created after elections. Independent MPs will continue to vote depending on the circumstances, thus in an opportunistic manner, depending on what they consider valuable. The MPs loyal to the existent factions will prefer to exchange their loyalty for a parliamentary mandate in 2009. However, political life will be more dynamic in the next two years. The electoral techniques, as well as the conditioned reflexes of the political class will be tested, which will create more opportunities for the MPs as well. But we must be aware of the fact that this dynamical character is a part of the traditional accessories of the political life, thus of the common business of politics.