When politicians suck at culture. Info-Prim Neo analysis

The political culture, in particular the yet unborn electoral one, received another two blows into the Moldovan society's belly, which carries it. The president of the Liberal-Democratic Party Vlad Filat last week rejected Social-Democrat leader Victor Selin’s proposal to meet for a public debate, after his similar invitation was turned down by Communist leader Vladimir Voronin, and he did not like it. In another development, Vladimir Voronin used a marginal language to reply to the Liberal leader Mihai Ghimpu, who also attacked the Communists Party to the limits of decency, comparing it with an animal that sucks blood from birds. These are rings of the same chain of political vulgarity promoted in the present election campaign, which has a dual negative effect: First. It doesn't allow the voters to sort things out in this phletora of electoral messages and make a conscious choice. Second, it brings the standards of communication in society below the level of basic intelligence, offering a dangerous model in this respect to the entire society, in particular to the youth and even the children. Similar concerns were earlier discussed in last week's Info-Prim Neo analysis titled {“Why Voronin Said No to Filat.} Of course, the two cases are situated at different poles of electoral (lack of) culture, yet they both are cut from the same cloth. Vlad Filat's reaction to Victor Selin's move is especially regrettable since it resembles, at least in appearance, that of Vladimir Voronin: rough and scornful. He said he wanted to talk with Voronin, {not with his satellites or Mark Tkaciuk's}”. By reproducing Voronin's way to say no, Filat actually justified Voronin's refusal. In fact, Filat essentially did the right thing to turn down the invitation of the PSD leader, but in the genuine political culture – not the feigned and selective one – both essence and form matter; maybe form even more in many cases. [Selin cheated and Filat helped him] Filat just didn't afford to accept Selin's invitation, at least not in the way it was formulated. He couldn't afford to meet Selin for a debate at the same hour and in the same place Filat expected to meet Voronin, as Selin suggested. Filat also couldn't afford to accept the topics suggested by Selin for the debate. He proposed a debate about “the present and future”, not about “present and past”, as a Filat vs Voronin debate would be. First, in an election campaign one is expected to win the battle for “the present and past” before all else, a demonstration of what has been done or not done. Only then will the voters care to look at the sand castles built with a lot of fantasy by the numerous candidates. Selin has made a trump card out of his party not belonging to “the past” or to the “present”, meaning that it has never entered the parliament and, therefore, hasn't had political responsibility for the act of government. Had such a debate taken place, Selin could have never stopped to remind Filat of his mistakes in the past and present, as Filat would have been deprived of the opportunity to return the attack. Eventually, the debate could have become purely formal, about “whose sand castles are more beautiful”, and that would be a waste of the voters' time at best. This potential situation further endorses the supposition that a national-level debate featuring Filat and Voronin would have been the best variant. Filat couldn't afford to accept Selin's invitation for another time or place, either. If Filat truly made his invitation to Voronin in earnest, he should not neglect even the slightest possibility that Voronin might eventually show up. So he simply can't afford to reveal the secret techniques that he has prepared up his sleeve for Voronin. Because, not only in sports but also in politics, rivals are studied very carefully by a legion of experts before the encounter. Indeed, early in the campaign the Social-Democrats offered the Communists to form a coalition, which didn't happen only because the Communists refused it. So, Filat was partly justified to label the PSD a “satellite” of the Communist Party. But this is not a very sound reason to reject the invitation to the debate. He didn't even put himself to the trouble of formulating some proper arguments. As a matter of fact, the best way to answer such an invitation for Filat would have been to send any of the members of his campaign or party to do the job. Anyone could have handled a conversation about sand castles. A refusal through acceptance would have been a much refined move and in line with the principles of political culture, and culture in general. The Social-Democrat leader made the invitation to Filat through the mass media and not directly, not in an official way. He rather counted on obtaining an electoral effect than on getting an affirmative answer. In a way, Selin cheated, electorally speaking, and Filat helped him attain his goal. The form in which Filat worded his refusal compromised his own idea on the necessity and opportunity of nationwide election debates. [A few words about sucking] As for the exchange of “suck” remarks between Ghimpu and Voronin, there are little things to say and more things to do. To say they were rude would be perhaps an understatement, especially considering that the remarks were uttered by politicians who seek to lead the nation. Such situations call for a urgent reaction, if not from the election authorities, then from civil society with all its components. The civil society organizations and the mass media – the watchdogs of society, including of its ethical norms – have the right, and are obliged to condemn such borderline behaviors. The diverse election monitoring efforts, otherwise very useful, should be urgently modified to take into account certain political culture indicators. Because it could be that those remarks were not entirely accidental. The multitude of such cases suggest that we may witness some very well calculated electoral techniques, which affect the moral code of the nation, including of the youth and children. In a far more decent meaning, there is a Romanian expression which says about people with drinking problems that they have a sucking talent. It seems that some Moldovan politicians have a talent for sucking power, and becoming inebriated with it, if they think that they can do everything. Maybe its time to wean them? [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]