The coming of the parliamentary elections makes the parties become agitated and look for solutions for taking part in elections. Some of the parties start to become agitated when they see the agitation of potential competitors. The Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM) forms part of the last category. The PDM’s concerns were debated on December 9, 2018 in the program ”Reply” on Prime TV channel. Democratic MP Sergiu Sîrbu said the violations of the electoral legislation committed by the opposition parties are serious and put the political players in inequitable conditions. Moreover, according to the MP, the financial violations can be now punished by confiscating the money and turning it into state budget revenues and by fining the administration of the party, while the party leader can be banned from holding an administrative post, including a political one. “The financial violations in the election campaign are evident and are severe.”
The Democratic MP’s determination is firm – the penalties for the violation of the electoral legislation are very harsh: The electoral contender can be excluded from the race not only in our country. There are also other sanctions”. The conclusions are very correct and are only to be applied uniformly in relation to all the political organizations, including the PDM. But what the ruling party PDM reproaches the opponents for? The main reproach extracted from the PDM’s press release of December 7, 2018 is that the rivals of the PDM want to invert a sociological reality – the PDM’s rising rating in contrast to the decreasing ratings of the opponents. This intention, according to the supporters of the PDM, implies very serious dangers. Indeed, according to the last Public Opinion Barometer (POB), the PDM’s rating rose to 7.6% in November 2018 from 7.0% in May 2018. The question is – if the PDM’s rating grows, why do the party’s supporters agitate and start to warn their rivals? An answer is that despite the current rise in the PDM’s rating, there are reasons for concern as, according to the same POB, the PDM’s rating in October 2016 was 8%, but now it stands at only 7.6%. Surely, this can be due to opponents’ intrigues.
The PDM’s warning addressed to the main opponents is that these violate the electoral legislation. In the case of the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM), the reproach refers to the early nomination of candidates, which should have started 60 days before the election day, which is after December 24. This is very serious, according to the PDM and its supporters. What can the PSRM respond to the colleagues from the PDM? Only two things. The first thing is that indeed the PSRM started to identify the candidates for single-member constituencies in September already and completed this process at the start of November. But the identification of candidates does not mean their nomination. The nomination will be made in accordance with the Election Code, after December 24, 2018, when the party formally changes, by the decisions of its administration bodies, the status of identified candidates into that of nominated candidates. Moreover, the PSRM could remind the PDM of the fact that it did nothing but undertake the PDM’s practice of 2014, of early identifying candidates by so-called primaries.
Indeed, for the parliamentary elections of November 30, 2014, the PDM launched the campaign “PDM Express” on September 8, 2014, even if, under the Election Code, the nomination of candidates was to start on September 30, 2014. So, the second thing the PSRM can remind the PDM of is that the party’s leader Marian Lupu announced then that he, accompanied by ministers, MPs and vice presidents of the party, will directly discuss the PDM’s initiative to hold the open election of its candidates for Parliament with Moldovans from all the country’s regions. So, the process of identifying the candidates of the PDM through primaries started on September 8, 2014 and ended on September 28, 2014, two days before the official start of the candidate nomination process.
The PDM’s and its supporters’ accusations against the eventual bloc ACUM are now as serious. The most serious reproach to ACUM is that its leaders dared to inform public opinion about their intentions to create an electoral bloc at a time when ACUM appeared as an informal resistance movement in June 2018. This was a consequence of the invalidation of the Chisinau mayoral elections. So, the reproach of the PDM and its supporters actually refers only to the boldness of the leaders of the Party “Platform Dignity and Truth (PPDA) and the Party “Action and Solidity” (PAS) to: - protest against the government and its actions; - inform the citizens about their protests and the method of continuing the activity in accordance with the planned parliamentary elections. The question is – what is the difference between ACUM’s protest activity from the “PDM’s Express” of 2014?
One of the participants in the program tried to give a philosophical answer to this question - the problem is very difficult and the initiators of the notification should look at things not only from the perspective of a violation, but should also analyze the problem in a multidisciplinary context as it is a matter of hybrid war here. This is an excellent remark, especially because before the elections of November 2014, amid the direct war in Donbass and the hybrid war, all over the European area, propagandistic artists of the so-called Kremlin pool sang for the PDM without money for two days, with the concerts being retransmitted nonstop by the media holding of the PDM. This direct support from abroad for the PDM and indirect financing from a country engaged in a hybrid warn acquire really multidisciplinary proportions, especially after the recent investigation of the Open Dialog case by a special parliamentary commission. Also in the light of the multidisciplinary approach, it is curious to understand why, for example, the main state institution, Parliament, on November 30, 2018 can name the referendum date planned for the election day if the law that allows merging the elections and the plebiscite is to take effect on December 30, 2018. Why is Parliament allowed to anticipate events for which there is an express ban, while an informal entity like ACUM cannot share its intentions with the public?
Another supporter of the PDM insisted that the Central Election Commissions should have the freedom to treat this notice professionally. It now depends on the bodies that should act and how promptly they act. Another excellent remark! But it is somehow late. The CEC should have intervened when the case in Criuleni concerning the PDM’s financing became known or when the Shor Party only started to “constitute” its electoral base through the agency of social stores, which is banned by the law on parties.
So, we see that the agitation of the PDM and its supporters is really multidisciplinary. It is precious due to the fact that it reminds the PDM what it is allowed to do and what it should not be allowed to do in relation to its opponents even if the proportions are extremely disproportionate. These examples should necessarily be brought back into the focus of the public, national and international observers. This is how we slowly move towards the free and fair elections of February 24, 2019.
IPN Experts
