“There is nothing if there's no EU” or is AIE learning how to make its bed?

{Info-Prim Neo analysis} “Better later than never”; this idiom fits several important political events that happened recently in Moldova, or were related to Moldova, through the mutual effort of the European Integration Alliance (AIE). It is to be expected these effects will have proportional effects, otherwise they would lose their use, and even become dangerous for the entire society, as well as for the events' promoters. Part of the events mentioned refer to the appointments, by the Parliament, of the Information and Intelligence Service, National Integrity Commission, and National Anti-corruption Center heads. After a period of tensions and lamentations of the political class, as well as of the society as a whole, these appointments can only be compared to the process of electing the Head of the State. Likewise are their effects. All of this due to the fact that these institutions are, on the one hand, an integrating part of the country's reformation process, and on the other hand, an essential mechanism of guaranteeing reforms as a whole. Supposedly the leaders of the AIE member groups have, finally and through consensus, completed the negotiations on the distribution of these positions, on the interests of each party leader, which is explainable and mostly acceptable, when taking into account the specifics of coalition governance. However, if it was known from the very beginning that there is no other way than to find consensus through respecting these interests, why wasting so much time that may as well have been used for other purposes. If the AIE leaders claims that they, eventually, do their homework, why not do them on time, and how much time do they need to grasp this lesson? Evidently, another potentially right guess is of the skeptics who claim that the naming of the aforementioned heads does not necessarily guarantee institutional reformation, that each component of the current government would actually be tempted to continue using these resources for political and economic, Party-related, or group and personal goals, including towards the suppression of political and economic opponents (also of partners), as supposedly was the case with all previous governments. But there are also chances that the AIE politicians realize, there is no way they wouldn't, that failing to lay these 3 institutions on a foundation of real, non-mimed democracy may even create conditions for their eventual “devouring”, if in 2014 their luck is not as strong as of their current opposition. In any case, the leaders of the main opposition force, i.e. the Party of Communists, promised them such a prospect on many occasions. We are entering, at this point, another proverb that says “when you make your bed, you must lie in it”. Our – the citizens' – interest is that this “bed”, which the politicians make, be comfortable for the entire society; hence, we are to stimulate, with all our “electoral” and civil might, AIE's commitment towards a democratic activity of the three institutions. The past days offered another example of hope that the AIE power does its homework in coalition government. For the last time in the last three years, the 2013 State, Social Insurance, and Medical Insurance Budgets were elaborated by the Government and adopted by the Parliament within the terms stipulated by the Law. If it is not a coincidence, then we must admit it is one of the few moments of clear and relevant cohesion of the coalition, since we are talking about what all countries, in all times, have called “the main Law of the year”. In this sense, special merits go to the Government, and so do the main responsibilities for the critiques given to the variant of the Budget that was presented. Evidently, the criticizers of the Budget Bill are right in many aspects: it is consumption, not growth-oriented, one that does not cover all of the human daily necessities, and does not ensure the country economic growth, elements for which the governing politicians deserve to be criticized, and even held liable. Yet it is a Budget that was elaborated, and coordinated with the IMF, in a timely manner, and in this sense the National Public Budget, voted in two readings a few days ago, cannot be very far away from a realistic one. The current government could have set a great difference when facing the choice of having or not having a collaboration program with the IMF. The lack of such a program has always been, for all countries, a bad signal, since it creates a bad image in the eyes of investors, as well as in relations with important international bodies, such as the European Union in Moldova's case. Moldova's previous government chose, at a certain point, to drop the FMI program for several years in a row, a choice that, if it didn't cause much liability, didn't bring much gain either. And then, word is spreading that Germany's 2013 Budget is not that large either, whereas Germany is considered to be the locomotive of the European Union, with a worse and more criticized budget than in the previous years. Part of the critiques on the Moldovan Budget may have been anticipated, if the Government would have been predisposed to more public debates during the elaboration phase. In this sense, the civil society, business community, employees unions, etc. have the right to be dissatisfied. This lack of broader openness is all the more regrettable, when knowing that the coalition partners had the time and interests for reaching consensus in several key aspects of the budget bills, managing at the same time to abide by the constitutional terms on elaboration and adoption. It is a pity they did not yet learn to see the society as a trustworthy partner... It is possible that the first two topics – naming the leaders of the three institutions, and the timely adoption of the budget legislation, after a pause of several years – may be linked to a third very important event for Moldova, which happened recently. European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Fule stated that “EU's reply to the reforms undertaken by the Republic of Moldova should be an adequate one, rising up to the level of efforts that were put in, and namely offering the prospect of joining the EU”. Such a statement is a first-timer on such a level, and can be considered a turning point in Moldova's acknowledgment by EU institutions and member states in regards to Moldova's European prospect. From this perspective should the governing leaders and groups watch their actions, or, as the paraphrasing of an old hit says: “There is nothing if there's no EU” (originally “There is nothing if there's no love”). In other words, the European Integration Alliance's failure to fulfill its governing program would imply the political dissolution of its component groups and people, as well as more sombre prospects for the Moldovan society. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]