IPN analysis
Not much is yet known about the negotiations held by the former components of the Alliance for European Integration (AEI) to create a new parliamentary majority. In society, such a state of suspense arouses both concerns and hopes. The concerns are fueled by the lack of positive information, while the hopes by the lack of negative information. In such conditions, society has to analyze the different signs produced by the negotiations directly or indirectly so as to be more prepared for the possible effects that would confirm either the concerns or the hopes. In general, at least for a part of the population, the concerns are related to the possible early elections, especially the risk of the country’s European course being changed, while the hopes – to the improvement of the living standards, especially by maintaining the European integration course.
Signs of peace
The initiation of negotiations and the holding of several rounds last week can be regarded as positive signs. The peace signs are rather visible as they appeared after a long period of extensive political war on ‘all the fronts’ with ‘everyone against all’, which resulted in the most acute political crisis after the declaration of independence.
The composition of the teams of negotiators delegated by each of the three ruling parties is also a positive sign. There is no negotiator among the nine who would have the fame of intransigent ‘warrior’. Each of them showed abilities to analyze and adapt themselves to different conditions, in different periods and in different situations. After the round of talks, all the three teams have a similar behavior in the relations with the media, which is waiting for ‘incandescent’ statements for hours and in vain.
Even if it is rather unusual and even unordinary for the Moldovan political practice in the recent past, no information about the negotiation process has been leaked. Taken together, things show that even if the parties didn’t abandon their ‘fighting’ positions, at a certain stage they were able to agree civilized rules of the game, which are being respected for now. Things also show that the three parties want to reach compromises and re-from the ruling alliance rather than provoke early elections.
War signs
However, aggressive messages continue to be formulated outside the format of negotiations, which do not fit the atmosphere described above. They affect the negotiation process and arouse doubts as to the real goals pursued by the authors of these messages, including as regards the early elections and the continuation of the European course.
Such a behavior is promoted by the leader of the Liberal Party (PL) Mihai Ghimpu, who continues to make accusations against the head of the Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM), acting Prime Minister Vlad Filat, even if the latter does not become involved in exchange of replies. As a politician and free man, Ghimpu has the right to such a behavior, not yet as the leader of a party that delegated representatives to hold talks as the negotiators can experience or already experience difficulties in the communication with the partners, at least from the PLDM. For their part, the difficulties do not contribute to an effective dialogue in particular and to the solving of the political crisis in general. In other words, they reduce the possibilities of overcoming the crisis to one – the early elections.
Mihai Ghimpu maintains the belligerent tone of his speeches even if he lately paid a series of visits to Europe and had meetings with European and U.S. ambassadors in Moldova. It is expected that after each of these statements made after the meetings, the Europeans and Americans feel uncomfortably in the role of supporters of his message, which is given by Mihai Ghimpu to them, especially because of the aggressive tone of this message. This state of discomfort expands in the conditions in which the leaders of the other parties of the former AEI are sinning by presenting the Europeans and Americans as their own advocates in the internal political dispute.
Possible explanations
There are several explanations for such a behavior that is counterproductive in negotiations. Some of them could be understood and even justified, if they didn’t pose such a threat to the country’s development course, including:
1. The leader of the PL wants to exert pressure in the negotiation process so that his party gains more when the new borders of the political influence of each party are set.
2. Mihai Ghimpu presents the common position of the PL and PDM, which, together, will have fewer seats in the possible parliamentary majority under the AEI 3. During the rule of the AEI 1 and the AEI 2, the two parties often had common stances, frequently against the PLDM, and this is rather a shortcoming of the PLDM and Vlad Filat;
3. They say that Mihai Ghimpu has certain personal frustrations for Vlad Filat’s negligent treatment towards him. Ghimpu may want to take revenge on Filat, as a politician who has struggled “for freedom and the people since the other politicians were kids”, as he said. If this is true and such a state was reached, both of the rivals deserve being disapproved of.
Nonetheless, Ghimpu has the right to such warlike behavior until and after the negotiations, not yet during them. Otherwise the ‘war signs’ will become clear signs of early legislative elections, with all the possible consequences and responsibilities.
Valeriu Vasilică, IPN