Political partnership strengthened the ruling party and weakened the opposition – Mihai Godea

[How do you see the social-political state of affairs in Moldova two years after the Parliamentary elections of 6 March 2005?] The Parliamentary elections have introduced several new elements in the political system of Moldova. First of all, we should take into consideration the political partnership between the Christian-Democrat opposition and the government party, a partnership which improved the image of the Communist Party and made the Parliamentary opposition silent. The other Parliamentary parties try by all means to make their political position stable, but their efforts are in many cases inefficient. Due to the situation occurred in the Parliament, the opposition plays its bit parts as a supporting actor in the political process, and its approaches are often spontaneous and inefficient. The discontent regarding the fact the government is communist, this being the reason why it should leave, can not bring supporters without a thorough analysis of state’s corruption and usurpation of power. The opposition is still unprepared in this respect. On the other hand, the political partnership has strengthened more the ruling party and weakened the opposition. These effects have been generated by the frustrations of the opposition, and they are dominating the present political life. Moreover, the chain of frustrations has created a state of general anxiety, which determines the citizens to inhibit their hopes. I believe this is very dangerous when you expect a serious change to happen. [April 4 created a state of general anxiety and inhibited citizens’ hopes] [- What were the most notable achievements and negative aspects of the government and of the opposition during the last two years?] Speaking about the government, the most important achievement was the dispersal of the opposition and strengthening of the international image. By means of the political partnership including a part of the opposition, the ruling party proved that it can govern according to democratic principles and the opposition can “constructively” contribute to the governing “to the benefit of the national interest”. It sounds nice and pacifying for the citizens, but especially for the vigilant eyes of the West. On the other hand, the opposition seems to be content with the role of a victim and stands still in its Parliament seats. During the last two years, the opposition did not undertake any notable nationwide action. We might found ourselves in the situation to ask what the opposition parties are doing. If we hear the citizens asking who the liberals or social-democrats are, we must not judge them too harsh as they might have not even heard about them. In what concerns the failures of the government, there are a few. First of all, the loss of the eastern market is the hardest situation occurred in the national economy during the last 10 years. Not even the financial crisis in Russia at the end of the 90’s was that destructive. Moreover, the simulation of reforms has seriously affected the European integration process. This goal of Moldova is steadily becoming science fiction. Europe has no strategy for the Eastern block, and apparently Moldova is to be left forever at the border of the European Union. Moldova’s spoilt relations with the neighbours pushed it into an unprecedented international isolation. At present, Moldova has no foreign “lawyer”. The opposition has secluded itself in an “ivory tower” and cries, calling the citizens to support it. It could be successful, if it could be realistic. Without modern means of communication, it might be difficult for the opposition to make its message clear, and the potential supporters might not hear its desperate message. [The citizen, the great looser of government’s reforms] [- What are the benefits that the population received during the last two years due to the political configuration in the Parliament?] I am no sure the citizens have noted benefits, but they definitely lost a lot. The most important thing to be said is that the reforms are not carried out in the paces corresponding to society’s state of affairs and this fact affects the European integration process. Reforms can not be implemented via reports and public speeches, but trough responsibilities and implementation of principles and norms. What we have seen during the last two years shows an obvious stagnation in what concerns the reforms. The implementation of the EGPRSP and of the Joint Action Plan Moldova-EU is at its end, and the citizens can not say they feel the results. Brussels warns us that we have serious problems regarding human rights, corruption, freedom of media etc. What are we making reforms for if they can not provide us with fundamental human rights? The obvious looser in this situation, is definitely the citizen. [- 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?] It is very difficult to make forecasts. The upcoming parliamentary elections could determine the People’s Christian Democrat Party to feel less secure in the partnership with the government. Certainly, the Christian-Democrats and Communists will split. I do not think anything more notable will happen. The political regrouping of the opposition in the eve of elections will not be something new and I do not think it will significantly change the standpoint of simple citizens. [-How do you see the Moldova-Romania and Moldova-Russia relations and how will they influence the European integration process of Moldova?] The relations with the Russian Federation have been always under the mark of amateurism. Regrettably, there was no government to build these relations on the basis of the national interests of Moldova. Russia, besides its role of regional power, is a specific culture, permanently dominated by the obsession of its interests in the former soviet space. The childish attempt to tell Russia where to get off that we have witnessed during 2004-2006 is a consequence of the lack of imagination in our foreign policy regarding the eastern neighbour. This incident has generated serious consequences, as the West was wondering if the government of Moldova is acting logically. Giving up the “harsh strategy” in our relations with Russia after the ban on agricultural products and “renegotiation” of the price of natural gas proved once more the lack of instruments in implementing a firm foreign policy on the eastern direction. [A government without principles and without far-sightedness] The relations with Romania are continuing to be a proof of Moldova’s pro-Russian orientation. The verbal “hacking” against Romania, every time authorities want to get closer to Russia, became a tradition for Chisinau. This approach is not only unbeneficial, but it also influences and will continue to negatively influence the position and the benefits of Moldova resulting from the new neighbourhood with EU. The strategy of Chisinau in its relations with Romania reveals the element of grotesque, as well as of circus when we characterise this relation, is not rational and brings no good to the citizens. The way the relations with the Russian Federation and Romania are developed is not helping in any way the process of European integration, which should first of all respect principles and far-sightedness. And the government from Chisinau is lacking both of these.