We already got used to seeing politicians making all kinds of promises on the eve of the elections. It is less important whether the promises are achievable or not. What matters is for the promises to be made and explanations for their non-delivery can be found later. The executive secretary of the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM) Vlad Batrîncea is one of the most generous promise-makers. In the talk show “Key issue” broadcast by NTV Moldova channel on November 28, 2019, the executive secretary of the PSRM said the first bill that the Socialists will suggest in the new legislature will ban the “buying” of MPs. “We have two systemic bills designed to bring party switching and buying of MPs to an end. The first says the MP’s attempt to leave the group will lead to the loss of seat. The second provides the Constitution will be amended so that the Republic of Moldova becomes a presidential state,” noted Vlad Batrîncea.
The first thing that attracts attention is the fact that both of the systemic bills of the PSRM necessitate the amendment of the Constitution, while the amendment of the supreme law is a long-lasting process that requires thorough preparation. Or we could justly expect that the Constitutional Court will declare the given bills contrary to the supreme law because they encroach upon the integrity of the Constitution. The executive secretary of the PSRM knows these things. Therefore, the promises made by him are exclusively propagandistic in character. To show this, Vlad Batrîncea should only answer the question – in whose service are the MPs? In the service of the people, of the party that fielded them or, possibly, of the single-member constituency where they were voted?
Only after answering the given question, Vlad Batrîncea, together with his colleagues from the PSRM, could be asked to write the bill to amend the Constitution so as to ban party switching and the process of buying MPs. Furthermore, it would be good if the secretary of the PSRM, together with his colleagues, decides if they want to ban party switching both for the MPs elected on party lists and for those elected in single-member constituencies. Who and how will initiate the procedure for withdrawing the seat of MP? Should we admit that for the MPs chosen in the national constituency, the procedure for withdrawing the seat of MP is initiated by the party on whose ticket they were was chosen? Or possibly by the parliamentary group of the given party? What should we do in the case of the MPs chosen in single-member constituencies? As the citizens choose concrete persons in single-member constituencies, not the party, even if these run as representatives of this party. Namely for this the PSRM and its informal leader Igor Dodon pleaded when they proposed switching over from the proportional representation system to the mixed system on April 19, 2017. Or we will ban party switching in a differentiated way: for those chosen in the national constituency – yes, while for those chosen in single-member constituencies – no!
So, from what the Socialist MP Vlad Batrîncea promised, we should understand that we will have two types of MPs – those chosen in the national constituency who are in the service of the party, and those chosen in single-member constituencies who are in the service of the constituency. In this case, it is not clear who is in the service of the people? The party? Otherwise the right to withdraw the seat of MP could not be argued. Or maybe the secretary general of the PSRM wants the electoral system to be changed and avoids saying openly that he pleads for switching over to the majority electoral system and the introduction of the imperative mandate? But this thing was already put on the electoral agenda of the leader of the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM). If so, a question appears – why does the executive secretary of the PSRM avoid admitting that his party supports the PDM’s initiative? Moreover, the PDM already proposed the first concrete steps in the given direction – organization of a consultative referendum on February 24, 2018, together with the parliamentary elections. In such a situation, the best solution is for the PSRM to declare openly that it supports the PDM’s initiative.
However, before adopting the given decision, the executive secretary of the PSRM, together with his colleagues, should consult the Opinion of the Venice Commission that was issued on March 14, 2009, concerning the imperative mandate and the similar practices. There he will discover Ukraine’s experience dating from 2003 that continues to have consequences, as to the introduction of the imperative mandate on the part of parties and many other interesting things. Definitely, both the politicians from the PSRM and those from the PDM know very well these practices and the difficulties of reproducing them. However, before the elections they insist on these, evidently for propagandistic reasons.
IPN Experts
