The level of approaching the political opponents is plus-minus equal to the level of distancing oneself from their supporters, especially those who are more intransigent. On the one hand, this is the difference between the status of the country’s President and the status of any other politician, including from the senior administration. On the other hand, this is the difference between the political sense of reconciliation and its human sense.
---
On the first day of March, President Igor Dodon launched the idea of a social dialogue platform for appeasement and (re)conciliation between the two sides of the Nistru River. I don’t think there is someone reasonable who would oppose such an initiative because namely the Head of State is the one who plays the role of mediator in the thorny problems at national level, while the Transnistrian problem is the first of these. But the same reasonableness obliges us to ponder over the way in which this initiative can be implemented so as to expect better results than those of many other previous intentions to improve the relations between the two sides of the Nistru.
Three levels and a consensus
It seems that for success to be witnessed, we must accept the existence of several levels of the initiative: the level of the right side of the river, the level of the left side and the common level of the platform. For understandable reasons, the given levels can be attained in the same order, which is starting from the identification of a mandatory consensus on the issue on the right bank of the Nistru.
It is namely about a broad consensus, at the level of the whole society, and not only of particular sides and not only of the political class, even if this does not even exist now. It is a process similar to the formation and training of a good team of footballers for a competition with the biggest possible stake in the life of this team. A match with such a stake cannot be won by the team that includes only a kind of players, strikers, for example, even if are all valuable. This is because halfbacks, fullbacks, goalkeepers and a solid reserve team are also needed. And also because the opponent team will have namely this configuration, which is traditional for this type of sport, if it also wants to have power and legitimacy.
Surely, Igor Dodon can count on several members of the future “team” of the right side and these represent a large part of the members and supporters of the Party of Socialists, but not all those who voted for this party in the last presidential elections. Grosso modo these would represent about 20-30% of all the “players” present in society. With the others, it will be harder as these will have to be convinced or even re-convinced to join the team and this is even harder.
Conciliation and political conjuncture
It can be assumed that Igor Dodon took a first step towards attracting the future members of the team/”social dialogue platform” from among the political class with other views than his, including on the solving of the Transnistrian conflict and not only. Eventually, this is what he referred to after the recent trilateral meeting with Speaker Andrian Candu and Prime Minister Pavel Filip, when he spoke about the creation of a common platform at the level of experts and functionaries of the presidential administration, Parliament and Government for making headway with the given issue (“the country’s reunification and settlement of the Transnistrian conflict” – e.n.).
With many and big reserves, we can admit that such a common platform at political level could be constituted sooner or later. This is because experienced politicians, in particular political conjunctures, can and are ready to make compromises, including in areas where this is less expected. The current government and current President Igor Dodon have a confirmed example in this regard (voting in of ex-President Nicolae Timofti) and a presumptive example (distribution by consensus of the post of Moldova’s ambassador to Russia). The notion of ‘political conjuncture’ is used here not mandatorily in negative meaning because Igor Dodon’s vote of 2012 prevented greater destabilization than later, while the post of ambassador in a country should be given to the one who can bring most of the benefits to the country from this.
But the biggest difficulty in constituting and ensuring the functioning of the component of the right side of the “social dialogue platform” derives not from the political sphere, even if this may seem strange. For the right side to gather together the “reunifying” or “conciliation” team, all the social strata and categories, which should believe in the cause of reconciliation and contribute to this, including by sacrifices that are not just symbolic for many, should give their consent and make effort in this regard.
Deprived of presidential mercy
At least for now, there is not much hope that sufficiently large and many categories will accept the invitation to join or to support the idea of the social dialogue platform on the Transnistrian issue, within a common team. It is mainly, but not only, about combatants, police officers and service members who took part in the Transnistrian conflict on the part of the constitutional authorities and their families that felt insulted by particular statements and actions of the initiator of the platform Igor Dodon, made and taken on the occasion of the visit to Tiraspol and Bender at the start of his term. It is about the convinced unionists and their supporters, including from the category of those who believe that any political opinion has the right to life in a politically mature society, if it is not stated by force. Igor Dodon gave a number of signs showing that these are his irreconcilable opponents. There are also the sexual minorities and representatives of other denominations than the Orthodoxy, who were also deprived of the “presidential mercy” willingly or unwillingly, directly or indirectly. The convinced pro-Europeans and person who are undecided about or indifferent to the Transnistrian issue who, together, grosso modo, constitute more than 20-30% of the players and amateurs of the “reconciling team” needed in the President’s formula, can also be mentioned here.
With such representation, the conciliation platform does not have sufficient legitimacy as well as chances to reach agreements with the left side if such conciliation is possible, also because the given agreements should be confirmed by a national referendum, how President Dodon himself suggests.
Test of political will and sincerity
In such conditions, Igor Dodon will be obliged to prove the presidential sincerity and will to contribute to the constitution and good functioning of the “conciliation platform” by gestures aimed at coming closer to the categories that were kept aside until now, especially in the election campaign. Actually, it is about a first social conciliation gesture at the level of the “reconciliation team” from the right side. It would be normal for the President’s role of moderator between all the social categories and guarantor of their interests. Otherwise, the fate of his initiative will not be different from that of other earlier initiatives.
It’s true that such a behavior by the President implies multiple risks to his political career and the prospects of the political party that he headed until recently, before becoming Head of State. This is because the level of approaching the political opponents is plus-minus equal to the level of distancing oneself from their supporters, especially those who are more intransigent. On the one hand, this is the difference between the status of the country’s President and the status of any other politician, including from the senior administration. On the other hand, this is the difference between the political sense of reconciliation and its human sense.
Least, but not last, the given behavior is needed because the conciliation that is so necessary in all the areas that have divided Moldovan society since the declaration of independence, such as language, history and the development course, works according to the same model.
Valeriu Vasilică, IPN
