Press Release
on the organization of the debate “The chances oh the IV Eurointegration Alliance and of Moldova”, the 43st installment of the “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates”, Series. Public debates series held by the news agency IPN in its conference room with the support of the German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”
Debate 43 brought together Communist MP Artur Reşetnicov, Lib-Dem MP Chiril Lucinschi, Democrat MP Eugeniu Nichiforciuc, and Igor Boţan, executive director of the Association for Participatory Democracy and also the Project's standing expert.
We felt the need to hold this debate in hot pursuit of an extremely hot event, which happened the day before – the removal of the Streleţ Cabinet on a censure motion, moreover, a censure motion based on “suspicions of corruption” and which was voted not only by the initiators – the parliamentary opposition, but also by the alliance partners. If we bear in mind what happened to Moldovan society and to Moldova following a similar case in 2013; that we haven't had a functional government for almost a year now, with all the political, economic and social consequences of this; that winter is coming bringing along higher energy rates while the IMF is not coming; that protest moods are alarmingly high and that little to no progress has been made with solving the “heist of the century” case, it becomes clearer what we meant by saying “The chances of the IV Eurointegration Alliance and of Moldova”. One more clarification is required. “The IV Eurointegration Alliance” is used nominally, because the future coalition could have a different name as well as a different configuration; nothing should be excluded at this point, not even a change in the country's vector of development. The initial version of the heading had an ordinal number also for Moldova, and was supposed to be formulated as “The chances of the Fourth Alliance and of the First Moldova”. Eventually this urge was overcome, but the point is clear: Moldova has not fared quite well lately, and the current situation is posing a threat to Moldova itself as a country, society and state. So the “First Moldova” would have perhaps sounded funny if it wasn't so sad.
It's like in the joke offered quite timely by the political folklore. Two friends talk: - Hey, can you understand what the hell is going on in our country? - Well, let me explain it to you. - I didn't ask an explanation, I can explain it myself! But do you actually understand what the hell is going on?
Considering the specifics of the IPN project, the organizers of the debate wanted to help Moldovan society understand what is going on in our country and what we should expect in the future, having this understanding.
The formation of a new pro-European coalition in Parliament is wanted, but at least two parties that declare themselves pro-European – the Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM) and the Democratic Party (PDM) – do not trust each other. At the same time, most of the political forces do not want early parliamentary elections, this being the worst scenario for the country, while reforms are vital for Moldova’s future.
Communist MP Artur Reshetnikov said that he and his colleagues didn’t hide the fact that they wanted the Premier to be dismissed based on allegations of corruption and the Communists, by their speeches, even convinced many of the MPs to vote for the dismissal of the Government. It’s strange why Valeriu Strelet didn’t use the Parliament rostrum to say who ‘captured’ the state and to make other revelations. All the parliamentary groups should come together for a dialogue where to form together a technocratic government and should unite society and stop dividing the people into ‘ours’ and ‘yours’.
Eugeniu Nichiforciuc, MP of the Democratic Party, replied, saying the Democrats weren’t convinced by the Communists to vote for the no-confidence motion. The PDM has its own position and reasons for which it decided to withdraw its support for the Government. “Mister Strelet indeed didn’t convince us that the country needs such a Premier. We decided that we should not reach winter with such a Government and should make effort to form a new, powerful pro-European government. We hope to create an efficient government. We must realize that Moldova needs a Government that must represent the interests of the county, not only of some people. Our goal is to fight corruption. The country deserves a government that would fight corruption. It does not need a government that would create a shield around those who are suspected of acts of corruption,” he stated, adding that the PDM will negotiate the formation of a new parliamentary majority only with the parties that openly declare themselves pro-European.
Liberal-Democratic MP Chiril Lucinschi said the vote to dismiss the Government with the support of the Democrats was similar to the scenario of 2013, when the Cabinet was headed by Vlad Filat. “I agreed with the idea that a parliamentary majority actually didn’t exist. Only 50 MPs is not enough. We discussed the possibility of coopting the Leanca group into the alliance. We were sincere and at least in the last meeting we said that we are ready to discuss. But we were told that the re-formation of the alliance is possible only by dismissing the Government,” he stated. According to Chiril Luchinschi, the Lib-Dems consider that somebody wants to extend the control over the state institutions and this was the real goal of the dismissal of the Cabinet. That’s why the invitation to form a new coalition, even if it’s a correct proposal, will be examined only after the PLDM convinces itself that the PDM already trusts the Lib-Dems.
Igor Botan, executive director of the Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT), who is the permanent expert of the IPN project, stated that the October 29 vote in Parliament represented settling of an old score. He said he wants to understand the PCRM’s motivation to vote for the no-confidence motion when knowing that the PDM wants a coalition with the pro-European parties. The PCRM is not a pro-European party and will not be invited to negotiations, but also wants to avoid early legislative elections for fear. “It is important to understand that the Government was dismissed in order to settle an old score. My conclusion is that the current political class is unable to govern,” he stated.
The Agency published 5 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md): on 30.10.15, “ Chances of forming AEI 4, IPN debate” - http://www.ipn.md/en/arhiva/72689; “Sergiu Sarbu: PDM knows how to rule within minority coalition if PLDM leaves AEI” - http://www.ipn.md/en/politica/72425; on 31.10.15 “ Eugeniu Nichiforciuc: PDM will form coalition only with pro-European parties” - http://www.ipn.md/en/arhiva/72694; “Artur Reshetnicov: PCRM is for holding a dialogue involving all parliamentary groups” - http://www.ipn.md/en/arhiva/72695; “ Chiril Lucinschi: Trust between PLDM and PDM must be mutual” - http://www.ipn.md/en/arhiva/72696; “Igor Botan: Government was dismissed as a result of account settling in Parliament” - http://www.ipn.md/en/arhiva/72697..
Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN