The change in the electoral system during many months has been and will yet be the main subject of interest for a lot of people in the Republic of Moldova. Both the promoters and the opponents of the change agree that the adoption of the law on July 20 represents a turning point in the country’s modern history, but each side needs its own interpretation of what will change and how the life of Moldovan society will change, at internal level. But the adoption of the law represented also, if not a turning point, then a moment of hesitation or ambiguity in Moldova’s relations with the development partners, especially the European Union and the United States. The issue was developed in the public debate “Relations between Moldova and foreign partners following adoption of mixed electoral system” that was staged by IPN News Agency.
The standing expert of IPN’s project Igor Botan, director of the Association for Participatory Democracy, made reference to the statements of Federica Mogherini and Johannes Hahn, who said that the Republic of Moldova, when its changed the electoral system, practically fully ignored the recommendations of the Venice Commission. “The Republic of Moldova signed with the EU that plan of action that specified that the European Union in the democratic processes will have the Venice Commission and the OSCE as partners or landmarks. After the Association Agreement was signed, this approach remained standing, logical and legal, while the Republic of Moldova, according to European officials as well, fully ignored those recommendations. This is how our relations with the main development partner – the European Union – are characterized,” stated Igor Botan.
Vitalie Gamurari, spokesman for the Democratic Party of Moldova, said the bill to amend the electoral system was drafted based on the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The opportuneness of changing the electoral system was the only element discussed and the people’s opinion was taken into account here. The PDM collected 850,000 signatures from people who were for introducing the uninominal voting system. The mixed-member electoral system was the result of a dialogue and a compromise reached in Parliament, while the rule of democracy says the legislature has the right to pronounce on this.
Vitalie Gamurari noted the proposal to change the electoral system was submitted by the PDM and also by others in 2013 and was supported also by the extraparliamentary parties and by representatives of civil society. When the proposal was drafted, all the procedures were respected and unprecedentedly broad debates were staged. The relations between Moldova and the development partners haven’t worsened, but there is probably a break or a small misunderstanding. The PDM wants a dialogue with the development partners to explain how things stand in fact and the relations will definitely improve since autumn.
Alexandru Bujorean, deputy chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova, said the relations with the development partners definitely worsened with the change in the electoral system and the PLDM is concerned about the situation in which Moldova found itself after the adoption of this system that is designed to keep particular parties in power. “The PLDM is a member of the family of the European People’s Party, which has the largest group in the European Parliament, and the statements made this party and European officials were rather harsh. These condemned the actions of the ruling alliance and the decision to amend the electoral system,” he stated.
The Lib-Dem reminded the statements made by the EPP and ALDE, whereby the European institutions were requested to assess the decline in the rule of law and democratic standards in the Republic of Moldova, to stop any financing, to apply the strictest conditionality to any future financial assistance and to re-evaluate the Association Agreement as soon as possible. All these requests are catastrophic for the Republic of Moldova. “Regrettably, the representatives of the PDM and PSRM do not have the slightest idea as to the effort made by the PLDM at internal and foreign levels for this agreement to be signed and then ratified. Hard work was done and if this agreement is re-evaluated the ordinary people will be affected first of all,” stated Alexandru Bujorean.
Valeriu Giletski, leader of the parliamentary group of the European People’s Party of Moldova, said the relations between the Moldovan authorities and the development partners develop in a normal political framework. Evidently, the adoption of the mixed system generated a more critical reaction on the part of the European bodies, but there is nothing grave here. Greater communication is needed to convince the development partners that the electoral system change didn’t affect the democratic principles and the rule of law.
“Our relations with the European partners develop in a free, democratic way and in normal conditions. We earlier had situations when we had critical opinions on the part of the Europeans. They should evidently be analyzed, but it is also important for them to hear our voice – why did we do what we did? That’s why I do not make a drama of this critical reaction of the European institutions,” stated Valeriu Giletski.
Igor Grosu, secretary general of the Party “Action and Solidarity”, said the Republic of Moldova turned from a success story into a headache and a big disappointment for the development partners. This should be said honestly and the defective communication or its absence should not be invoked as the communication is very good and the partners realize things well.
According to the PAS secretary, the relations worsened because the European partners understood that the Government of Moldova tried to mislead the development partners with lists of laws and mechanisms and was for now successful. “But the Europeans understood it clearly that beyond the negotiated laws, there is also the notion of rule of law and there are captured institutions. These problems are daily faced by the people,” he stated.
Igor Grosu considers the Republic of Moldova will encounter difficulties in restoring this confidence because Moldova is not the center of universe and the EU has also other problems, conflicts and more problematic states, such as Ukraine, Syria and Turkey. According to him, the promoters of the idea modified the electoral system to make sure that they will keep power, to the detriment of the people’s welfare.
The public debate “Relations between Moldova and foreign partners following adoption of mixed electoral system” was the 75th installment of the series of debates “Developing political culture by public debates” that was organized with support from the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
