Vote recount like a beneficial shock for parliamentary parties. Info-Prim Neo analysis

The December 10 decision of the Constitutional Court (CC) to perform a vote recount was surprising to a certain extent, relevant for the changes that take place in Moldovan society volens-nolens, and beneficial for the parties, especially those that entered the new legislative body, even if that decision was political in some way. [Separation of powers with political connotation] As importance, the given decision can be put on the same scales as another decision by the CC, whereby the decree to institute the Soviet Occupation Day on June 28 issued by Acting President Mihai Ghimpu was declared unconstitutional. They were taken at an interval of less than half a year and can be considered a direct affront to the administration in the person of the Alliance for European Integration (AEI). During the eight-year period of governance of the Communists Party (PCRM), no such events took place and could have taken place. At least a recount of the votes cast in legislative elections, at the request of the Opposition, was never performed and no decree with a similar status signed by former-President Vladimir Voronin was rejected. The word ‘affront’ is used here not in the meaning of insult or offending remark, but rather in the meaning of ‘opposing something with courage’. Thus, the CC disputed or doubted the legality of the aspiration of the member parties of the AEI to continue to rule in Moldova. It is not excluded that the CC’s decision to perform a vote recount, which satisfied the PCRM’s demand, is political to a certain extent as, during the last year, we witnessed direct verbal confrontations involving representatives of the Government on the one hand and representatives of the judiciary, including the Constitutional Court, on the other hand. The current members of the CC were named to posts by the former Communist administration, with the then President Vladimir Voronin deciding even whom of the drivers to send to work for Moldova’s embassies abroad. However, the first conclusion is that the separation of powers is possible in Moldova. This principle started to work and this became possible owing to the alternation of the political forces in power. Even if the CC punished the present administration partially according to political criteria it is more correctly to commit an abuse towards the administration than the Opposition because the government has more instruments to defend its interests. It is a plus for the present administration that created conditions for such deviations as manifestations of the principle of the separation of powers. This way, a chance appeared at the level of social consciousness to make the government more responsible not at the end of the mandate, but while in power. “Watergate” or even “Monicagate”, which concerned U.S. presidents, would be models that can be copied if the Moldovan judiciary is unable or is not interested in dealing with at least the simplest case of the many accusations made against present and past administrations. [Getting too big for one’s boots in the political culture] The CC’s decision can have a beneficial effect on the parliamentary parties that each considered themselves victorious in the elections and important for the country’s fate. A possible, but not obligatory distribution of the seats as a result of the vote recount could radically change the situation so that everyone will feel sorry for not being satisfied with what the fate and the Moldovan voters offered them. Until then, the instinct of self-preservation, if it exists, should make the parties have a more conciliatory behavior and be ready to negotiate and make compromises, until it is not too late. This is the second conclusion. The vote recount can produce several results. [First:] the distribution of seats will remain unchanged. [Second:] the distribution of seats will change partially. [Third:] the distribution of seats will change essentially. In the third case, the elections could be declared rigged and there would be announced new elections. The first result is the most probable because most of the national and foreign observers described the elections as free and fair or partly fair. But the second and third variants cannot be excluded. The PCRM has the experience of eight years in power. If the elections had been rigged in the period as it was asserted for numerous times, the PCRM knows how this is done and might provide evidence “out of experience”. In such a case, all or some of the parties of the AEI could lose seats and they will have to change their arrogant attitude towards the partners of the failed center-right coalition as well as Moldovan society and the foreign partners that invested trust and money in a part of Moldova’s political forces. But the local authorities representing the PCRM might also have planted ‘bombs’ in the elections. It is said that in some northern districts of Moldova that grow sugar beet, the population is hostile towards the representatives of the former government as they consider they are to blame for the degradation of the sugar beet sector and the impoverishment of a large section of people. Paradoxically, the election results show northern Moldova remained as ‘red’ as five or ten years ago. It is not excluded that the AEI also accumulated experience and will be able to reveal the frauds committed by the PCRM. It is hard to say to which parties the ‘vacated’ seats will go. An idealist variant would be if the Moldova Noastra Alliance passed the election threshold and the seats of the PCRM and other parties that are important for the country’s fate would significantly decrease in number. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]