IPN analysis: The destinies of countries depend a lot on those who govern. In accordance with the rules of democracy, which is known to be not the best practice, but mankind discovered nothing better yet, particular politicians come to power as a result of the political struggle that is usually fought in election campaigns. The electoral confrontations involve practically the whole political class that represents the totality of options for the country, proposed to the voters. The future elections will be mainly geopolitical in character: to the West or to the East? The people’s decision will be influenced by a number of factors, including the behavior of the promoters of one option or another. The given analysis centers on the fate of the pro-European course of Moldova, which depends on the behavior of that part of the political class that will promote it in the future election campaign.
---
Let’s do a simple exercise of three moves by the cursor. A political activist of an extra-parliamentary party who is sufficiently known reposted a very denigrating article against one of the leaders of the parties of the Pro-European Coalition on a social networking site. The link goes to the original article published on a blog, which, for its part, is incorporated into a well-known information website. At first sight, these are normal things in a society with free media that enjoys the right to free expression. I assure you that these three moves can make any more or less prepared supporter of the European integration of Moldova doubtful.
The pro-European resources in the service of anti-European parties
Such an assertion was formulated because the politician who published the article on a very popular social networking site represents a pro-European and even pro-Romanian party, the information website is known both for its pro-European orientation and for the close connection with one of the important leaders of another party of the Pro-European Coalition, while the blog belongs to one of the people who are close to the leader of a categorically… anti-European and pro-Russian party. Moreover, certain information suggests that the politician who published the article has close, even if more discreet relations with one of the parties of the Pro-European Coalition.
I did myself this exercise and I doubt it that the connection between the three elements of the so-called ‘information’ chain is accidental because such cases, maybe not always so noticeable, are often witnessed in the media and the virtual area of Moldova. A part of the data and conclusions about this phenomenon were formulated in the IPN analysis “Press, Internet and Moldovan politics in off-shore?”, which was published on August 11, 2014.
Camouflaged war inside Pro-European Coalition and its roots
A conclusion that should be re-emphasized now that this topic is developed is that the components of the Pro-European Coalition seem to be in a camouflaged information war now, at the start of the election campaign. In this war they use different means and intermediaries.
The current partners may behave like this out of political instinct, which makes them follow the Russia proverb translated as “hit yours to scare the foreigners”. Maybe the same instinct makes them follow the animal instinct and mark the territory before the elections, with the intention of extending it by using the ‘close ones’. After the elections, the extended territory would allow them to claim more important and a higher number of posts in a possible government configuration. Maybe it is about particular ‘military actions’ taken with a reconnaissance purpose or according to the principle “conquer more to obtain as much as you need”, eventually in negotiations on a ‘ceasefire’ for ensuring future cooperation, in the election campaign and after it. For analogy, given that we resorted to military terminology, they say that one of the reasons for which Putin attacked southern Ukraine was to make the people forget that he already annexed Crimea.
From the perspective of the election campaign, such behavior by the current partners-rivals of the Pro-European Coalition would be reasonable and even justified. But, as I said, the stake of the future elections is very great, the greatest after the proclamation of the country’s independence - the continuation of the European development course. Inside the political class, there is particular balance of the capacities for promoting the European course and the Eastern one. This balance represents the balance existing generally in society. The mutual attacking by the pro-European parties would be an artificial, subjective factor for destroying the balance, in favor of grouping the pro-Eastern parties, which in fact attack each other less. But the balance is rather fragile also because the pro-European parliamentary parties and the extra-parliamentary parties cannot stand each other. Thus, there is the risk that ‘the second front’ will appear on this part of the political sector. But the war, when it is started, develops by its own laws that are hardly controlled or cannot be controlled at all, including by those who started it. The war in Ukraine confirms this. That’s why the perception of the camouflaged ‘bellicose’ behavior of the parties of the Pro-European Coalition causes profound concern among the supporters of the country’s European course.
Common advantages, responsibilities and blame
The aforementioned East-West balance is the merit and responsibility and also the blame of the pro-European parties, first of all of those that are in power, including because the number of Euro-optimists in 2009 was much higher than now. It’s true that there are objective explanations, like the pressure, embargoes and other restrictions imposed from outside. But it’s also true that during these years the pro-European government could have done more for the great expectations of the Moldovans to be met to a greater extent. The government can be also blamed for missing a number of chances to go faster on the path to modernization owing to the internal conflicts witnessed by the alliances and coalitions that existed until now. In fact, what is going on between the ruling parties is nothing else but camouflaged recidivism of the then open ‘wars’. A part of the blame for the fact that a part of society associates Moldova’s course with the not very good part of image of the ruling parties is borne by the rulers.
By the way, the image, blame and responsibility are common and the amateurs of dangerous recidivism should take this into account. Those who imagine that they will improve their image by denigrating another party of the coalition or some of its representatives are not right because most of the voters will not take these undertones into account. When deciding whom to vote for, they will traditionally divide the parties first into two large categories: in power and in the opposition. They will do the same at the second selection level in relation to the parties that declare themselves pro-European. Only at the third level will the voters listen to and, possibly, hear the messages and promises of each party separately.
If not a bloc, then functional nonaggression pact
In such conditions, the pro-European parties, especially those that enjoy the advantages of the government, but also bear responsibility for governance, are obligated to thoroughly analyze their electoral behavior. I don’t know if there is time and place for an electoral bloc to which the IPN analysis “Goals and political investments of the electoral year 2014”, published on January 2, 2014, referred. I also don’t know if it’s possible to create the second electoral echelon-bloc of European parties which the current ruling parties should have taken care of or they at least should have not hampered its creation, as the same analysis suggested. Maybe there is yet time and place given that one of the leaders of a Pro-European Coaling party last weekend said he does not see how the components of the coalition can take part in elections separately.
However, it’s very clear that they must give up attempting unilateral and reciprocal, open or camouflaged attacks and time and will for this must definitely be found. The will must be formulated and formalized publicly very soon because the inertia of the social perception is great and the perfidy of less than three months left until the elections may not be enough for an essential change. In this respect, a nonaggression pact would be the smallest condition that we can impose on the parties of the Pro-European Coalition, with obligations, responsibilities and clear and transparent implementation mechanisms. For example, a point of this possible memorandum could oblige the electoral staffs of the three parties not to attack the coalition partners, as such an attack would be regarded as an attack launched by one of them, and not to order or promote such messages. A common body may be created to control and make sure that the relevant reciprocal obligations are fulfilled.
IPN challenge
A similar memorandum could be signed by analysts, commentators and experts involved in the dissemination through the media of the election campaign, who have pro-European convictions and who realize what danger the denigration, falsification, manipulation and other forms of expressing opposition to the European cause of this country pose. Also, civil society organizations’ projects to monitor the political players and the media in the election campaign could extend the monitoring to the social networking sites, ‘information’ sites and blogs. Even if it’s not the media in the traditional meaning, the largest number of cases of gross falsification and groundless attacks, including against the person, family and children, were witnessed within such media.
Anyway, it’s absolutely necessary to establish a format of dialogue to swiftly identify the problems, vulnerabilities and solutions in the field. For the purpose, IPN Agency offers its own platform of public debates on the political culture, which has been tested and assessed during three years. The Agency makes such invitations to party leaders and activists, electoral staff chiefs, experts, opinion leaders, journalists and representatives of specialized NGOs. If going from the painful issues discussed until now, which can affect the behavior of the pro-European parties in this election campaign, we can propose the following persons as participants in the future debates: Vlad Filat – Marian Lupu – Ion Hadarca; Mihai Ghimpu – Ion Hadarca; Vlad Plahotniuc - Vlad Filat; Vlad Filat – Iurie Leancă etc. All the pro-European politicians who need to clarify aspects of the political behavior in the current election campaign with the political partners or opponents are also invited to the debates so that the most civilized message reaches the voters until the elections.
With IPN’s participation or not, the appropriate communication and behavioral framework for the election campaign must be agreed as quickly as possible. Otherwise, we will have to sound the alarm as “the European motherland will be in danger!”, as an older slogan said.
Valeriu Vasilică, IPN
