Why Voronin Said No to Filat. Info-Prim Neo Analysis. REPEAT FROM 08.11.2010

Moldova has lost yet another real, clear, tangible opportunity to take at least one step forward. An opportunity which, just like politeness, didn't cost anything but which would have been greatly appreciated and would have had really beneficial effects in case of success. Yet it wasn't meant to be this time either. Communist leader Vladimir Voronin turned down the invitation of Lib-Dem leader Vlad Filat to join him over a public election debate, presumably televised and supposed to be moderated by independent experts selected by agreement. The refusal was formulated, not even by Voronin personally, in a scornful style, which has once again pierced any trace of illusion that Moldova is able to adopt civilized forms of dialogue, which have long ago become a norm in “normal” countries. This has marked, let us call it, a double victory, with a double destructive effect. [Double 'victory'] The failed attempt to hold a public debate produced political benefits for both camps. Both the Liberal-Democrats and the Communists can now boast yet another electoral victory over their arch-nemeses. One party can take satisfaction in having made the gesture of throwing down the gauntlet as the other one can take pride in having the privilege of leaving it unpicked. The rivals will continue to be the “bad guy” in the eyes of the each other's base voters. At the same time, nothing has essentially changed in the mindset of the Moldovan electorate, because even without this gesture the supporters of Voronin wouldn't have voted for Filat and vice versa. The great stake of the failed debate would have been the undecided voters, who represent a considerable segment of the population, as well as the voters who decided not to vote at all, who also represent a fairly large proportion. [Destructive effects] The absence of debates at such a level, which are a tradition in the last hundred yards of the election campaigns in other, politically civilized parts of the world, will have at least two destructive effects: First. In this campaign, too, the fate of the country will be mainly decided by the same categories of voters: convinced, resolute, even uncompromising; nothing has happened since the July 2009 elections for the internal make-up and the ratio of forces within these categories to change. Unless they receive an additional stimulus to change their behavior, the undecided and the stay-aways will again be left out of the electoral process. Therefore, we should expect virtually the same results in the November 28 poll, consequently, we should not expect the political crisis to be overcome and, consequently, we should expect repeat elections, which could put the lid on the establishment of the Republic of Moldova as a nation-state and society. Second. The political elites and Moldovan society will continue to lag behind in terms of political culture development, there will be no progress with stopping and reversing the profound state of social division, and, all in all, the chances of a better existence for the people in their own country could be compromised for years. [Why did Filat make the invitation?] Vladimir Filat formulated his own version of an answer to this question. According to him, the debate was supposed to address important issues for the Republic of Moldova, which would allow the voters to make a correct and conscious choice on election day. “The November 28 elections will have to give a clear and definitive answer as to the future of the country. The citizens of Moldova will have to choose between a formal democracy and a functional one; between a consumption-dependent economic system and an economy based on development; between a foreign policy based on momentary interests and a coherent foreign policy based on clearly established priorities”, the Lib-Dems said in a press release. The invitation was worded in rather correct terms, both in relation with the Communists and the public opinion. Obviously, the gesture of making the invitation was not devoid of electoral subtext, but that was very natural considering the electoral period in which it was made. Perhaps, this subtext would have been less obvious and the initiative more sincere had the invitation been first addressed privately to Voronin and then, in the absence of a reply or in case of a negative answer, had been made public in a broader manner, the way it was done at the end of last week. Maybe the invitation should have been discussed in advance with the other leaders of the Alliance for European Integration, which would have added more legitimacy and sincerity to the invitation; regardless of the results of the discussion with the governing coalition partners. In the absence of such preparatory steps, there is an impression of miscalculation or even suspicion of electoral trickery; meaning, the invitation could have been launched in the hope it would never be accepted. Anyhow, these seem to be the arguments on which Voronin based his negative answer. [Why did Voronin refuse the invitation?] For the refusal to accept the invitation, Vladimir Filat accused Vladimir Voronin of fear and cowardice. But it doesn't seem to be the case, even considering the Communist leader's selective communication behaviors, for example, with the media. Calm, relaxed, even soft and charming with the reporters who don't ask him unpleasant questions, he may become very angry and let out tirades of personal attacks when the questions do not suit him, or, in other cases, he ignores entirely such reporters. Info-Prim Neo attempted to clarify this trait of Vladimir Voronin in an interview requested in 2008 ahead of the Independence Day. One of the questions left unanswered then was: {“Are you afraid of the thorny media and reporters? The question is in the context of your monthly appearance at one and the same TV channel with one and the same host. Don't you think you would cope with the same agility with a series of brisk, tough and tricky questions coming concomitantly from different sides rather than soft questions served to you in a manner that would not harm your feelings?}). One thing that could be taken into consideration is the concerns of Vladimir Voronin himself and of his entourage about his potential physical and intellectual state in a crucial moment in which the debate was supposed to take place: the last few hours of the election campaign when any wrong impression may become irreversible. This concern is not at all unfounded, if we recall Voronin's first appearance on TV after the April 2009 events, when he resembled pretty much a fatigued Brezhnev in his last years in power. However, this could not be the main reason, since in his capacity as leader of the opposition Vladimir Voronin can boast the vivacity and political courage many younger and better schooled politicians can not. Rather it is something else, maybe even graver: the inability of the Communist leader and much of his party to engage in and maintain a civilized dialogue based on common sense and compromise when the circumstances require it. This trait originates in the ideological inheritance of the party according to which you don't discuss with “class opponents”, you exterminate them; and “anyone is a foe who is against us”. This apparently explains the arrogant, scornful, withering tone in which the refusal was worded by the Communists Party. The motivation of the refusal was entirely composed of electoral weaponry. Both the tone and the motivation could offend not only Vlad Filat and the Lib-Dems but also a fair part of the nation who would show interest in election debates at such a level. If Vladimir Voronin is indeed afraid of something, this would rather be the image boost that he thinks he could give to any Moldovan politician, not only to Vlad Filat, by agreeing to sit down for one-on-one debates with them. Made in the period of the Soviet authoritarianism and gotten used to his own eight-year authoritarian rule, Vladimir Voronin doesn't imagine and will not accept any other political leader than him, either nationally or inside his party. [Why Filat?] A couple of days ago someone was justifying Voronin's refusal in the press following this line of argument: Why it is Filat that Voronin should meet for debates? Why not other leaders of the Alliance? Why should Filat have the reputation of being superior to his coalition fellows?” Well, because it was Filat's initiative and nobody else's. True, perhaps he should have consulted his coalition partners over this initiative, as it was mentioned earlier. Secondly, because it was Prime Minister Vladimir Filat who has been responsible for the day-to-day administration of the state in the name of the Alliance, who has managed the budget, the cabinet and the ministries. It is he who has the right to assume much of the achievements as well as the failures of the government and the discontent of the general public. At his time Vladimir Voronin had the same levers of power, with the exception that he had the prime minister at his fingertips, whoever it was during that eight-year period. And since he is such a fierce critic of the Alliance, Vladimir Voronin should have himself invented some trick, like a public debate, to annihilate directly Vladimir Filat and consequently diminish the chances of the Alliance in bloc. Not to mention that some of Filat's coalition partners are trying during this election campaign to disclaim co-responsibility for the governance. [Another debate format?] Any other format of a “high-level” public debate would be less useful for the process of acquainting the Moldovan voters with such an instrument of democratic political confrontation. A [Voronin vs Ghimpu debate] would be prone to deviate to a Voronin-style dialogue with vicious and abusive language. The winning chances in such a case would be approximately equal, Mihai Ghimpu being the only politician today to be able to fight Vladimir Voronin on his ground and using his own weapons. But such a sample of political dialogue would be totally intoxicating for the ongoing election campaign and for all the following ones in the sense of a substandard political culture. A [Voronin vs Lupu debate] would be like watching “a death with a mute talk”. This might be a losing game for Marian Lupu, in which he might lose his intelligence, flexibility and openness to compromise in a direct clash with the antonyms of these virtues. This case, too, would be detrimental to Moldovan society in the process of developing a good political culture. In the case of a [Voronin vs Urecheanu debate], the dialogue could become narrow, chiefly limited to caustic, sometimes inspired remarks. The audience could be offered a show to enjoy, yet not a profound and multilateral message, too. Serafim Urecheanu can be at times as inspired as Voronin is in making remarks, but he might as well be not. And Urecheanu's latest appearance at the talk show “In profunzime” on Pro TV doesn't speak in his favor. Marian Lupu and Mihai Ghimpu looked then more natural, more credible. In fact, at the same show Vlad Filat was even more uninspired than Serafim Urecheanu, if not totally discomfited, apparently due to the thorny questions. It seems that the unintelligent form with which Vladimir Voronin wrapped his refusal also frustrated Vladimir Filat. “I agreed to lower myself to Vladimir Voronin's level...”, commented Filat and indeed he came low this time. If in any eventuality Vladimir Voronin agrees to show up for that debate, he won't make it an easy one for Vladimir Filat. Anyway, the invitation to an election debate is one of the very few attractive “tricks” employed in this rather dull election campaign. Vladimir Filat risked making it, because with Voronin or without, he will have to fill that very crucial segment of time starting at 20:00 on the last day of the election campaign. Ten to one that many radio and TV stations will have live transmissions then. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]