Ordinary people do not read election programs as they are more interested in parties’ capacity to produce resounding political events. Info-Prim Neo interview* with Igor Botan.

The election campaign is in full swing. The election runners have presented their programs, platforms, slogans and symbols. All of them command their “products” as well as they can so as to attract as many voters as possible. Some of them say they have the best solution to the economic crisis, while others say they know how to efficiently combat corruption in the society. Most of them assure they know the shortest way to the European Union. Faced with such a multitude of offers as in a Western bazaar, the voters have to choose the candidate to whom to give their votes, one candidate to whom to trust their future for four years. It is not an easy choice. At the request of Info-Prim Neo, [Igor Botan, the executive director of the Association for Participative Democracy “Adept”], which is a member of the Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections – Coalition 2009, will speak about the quality and content of the 21 offers proposed to the electorate for the April 5, 2009 legislative elections. [- Mister Botan, do the electoral offers meet voters’ demands?] - It depends on how we understand the word ‘electoral offer’. If we refer only to the texts of the electoral platforms, it is one thing, but if we mean the capacity to convince the voter it is another thing. The strongest parties got registered on the first days of the electoral period and rather quickly made their electoral offers public. I would like to mention that the quality of these texts is relatively good, at least compared with the texts of the platforms from the previous electoral years. The weaker parties registered several weeks later, probably so as to have time to draw on the platforms of the stronger parties, and outclassed the first as regards the promises concerning the rises in pensions and salaries. [- Are the people’s fears and preoccupations mentioned in opinion polls – poverty, salaries and pensions, unemployment, corruption, the children’s future – covered in the electoral programs?] - Yes, they are covered and described in a rather detailed way. But not this counts. I’m convinced that the electoral platforms of the contenders are read and analyzed by a very low number of persons. 95% of the people do not probably read the electoral programs as they are more interested in the parties’ capacity to produce resounding public events that are covered by the mass media, explained by commentators, etc. The direct and immediate appeal to the people’s feelings by touching the most sensitive things is fundamental. In a paternalist society as Moldova, most of the people need to be under the ‘protection’ of powerful leaders that promise to solve their problems, punish the persons to blame for the difficult situation, etc. These are well-known archetypes, but not all the political leaders can play the role of such leaders. I can say with certitude that the 20% rise in pensions and salaries of certain categories of budget-paid employees as from April 1, just before the elections, can have an absolutely amazing effect on the election outcome. This measure covers over 600,000 people with the right to vote. The ruling party did nothing but observe the pension law of 1998, but knew to name the elections say so as the electoral effect to be maximal. Did the Opposition react to this event reasonably and jointly? No. Instead, each of the Opposition parties wrote the nicest electoral platforms. What impact can the 50,000 tonnes of fuel donated by Russia to Moldova for the spring agricultural works have on the election results? Be sure that the mass media will make sure to explain whose merit was it? When the political culture improves, the focus on the electoral programs will be sharper. In fact, the electoral programs are very important for the experts and opponents. On the basis of these programs, one can call the government for account. But in Moldova we have problems here. For instance, the Independent Press Association (API) decided to carry out a civic education exercise – to compare the electoral promises of the ruling party at the end of mandate with its accomplishments. The PCRM immediately decided that this will be to its disadvantage. How can you make civic education and improve the political culture if you cannot draw the people’s attention for example to the fact that during 14 years the PCRM’s political program centered on the building of socialism and communism in Moldova, but when it came to power it declared the ‘liberal revolution’. There is one more question – why did the PCRM decide that the mentioning of this thing will be to its detriment? On the contrary, it can be advantageous because one can say that the PCRM is an honest party that, after drifting for 14 years, realized the truth and had the courage to admit it, declaring the ‘liberal revolution’. [...] [- What is the difference between the ruling party’s offer and the offers of other parties?] - The offer of the ruling party wants to convince the voters that the party did only very good things and will do even better things if it is again elected to power. The descriptions of the accomplishments are very vague. The PCRM describes its achievements this way: “During the eight years of responsible government, the Communist Party showed that it is able to solve the most serious problems and channel substantial resources for strategic development aims. The Communist Party showed that the state budget, salaries, pensions and scholarships can be constantly increased”. So, they say nothing about the source of the budget growth – the remittances, which rose over tenfold (!) while the PCRM was in power. For the ordinary people to realize what the ruling party achieved, they should better analyze the assessment, for example of the Social Democratic Party (PSD), considered by many local observers as an eventual coalition partner of the PCRM – the rich are richer, the poor are poorer: 72% of the population lives below the poverty line, 1% of the population owns 80% of the county’s wealth, the minimum salaries are over 100 times lower than bosses’ salaries, the minimum pension is ninefold lower than the pension of the MPs or of the members of the Government. The scourge of corruption and bureaucracy: over 90% of the population considers that corruption is a serious or very serious problem; we have over 60,000 bureaucrats – more than companies; we have 56 inspection bodies; we have over 5,000 services provided by the state for additional payment from the people’s pockets. Destruction of the economy: the volume of money sent by the Moldovans working abroad during a year is larger than all the investments during 17 years. They promised to create 300,000 workplaces, but instead cut 500,000 to 700,000 jobs according to different estimates. The state budget is mainly composed of remittances, the salaries are 3-5 times lower than in the neighboring countries, the GDP per capita is the lowest in Europe, the small business is destroyed, but the oligarchs are encouraged instead. The PCRM’s promises for the future term in office are as vague: building of a social state; economic renovation; integrationist opening; the country’s security and civic unity. Certainly, the parentheses are opened to a certain extent and these things are explained, but this does not count much. We know how the PCRM leader explained the fact that the electoral promises of 2001 had not been fulfilled: “We promised to examine the possibilities of solving these problems, not to solve them”. [*This text is a translated excerpt from the original interview published in Romanian]