Press Release
on the organization of the debate “Experts “translate” actions and statements of politicians to make them clear to the general public”. Developing Political Culture through Public Debates”. Public debates series held by the news agency IPN in its conference room with the support of the German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”

Held on 22 January 2021, Debate No.168 brought together: former CC judge Nicolae Osmochescu, political analyst Anatol Țăranu and Igor Boțan, IPN project’s standing expert.

Igor Boțan, the standing expert of IPN’s project, said any political message, if it does not incite hatred and does not encourage to violate the legislation, is absolutely legal. The messages of politicians should be trenchant and sincere. In such cases yet, there is a very big problem as stalemates appear.

The expert gave the behavior of the Party of Socialists and the ACUM Bloc as an example. “The first says it is of the left, but promotes conservative policies. It is a clericalist party that does everything possible to imbed the necessity of celebrating the Victory Day over fascism in Moldovan society. On the other hand, if they are trenchant, the Socialists should also celebrate the Day of the Socialist Revolution of 1917 as one cannot speak about the Red Army’s Victory without celebrating the Victory of the Socialist Revolution. It happens so because the PSRM wants to exploit this special relationship with the Russian Federation and to make use of the holidays that are used for propagandistic purposes in Russia.

The ACUM Bloc, before the parliamentary elections of February 2019, said it will no way form an alliance with Igor Dodon and Vlad Plahotniuc. However, in a bid to remove Vlad Plahotniuc, it formed a coalition with Igor Dodon. That confrontation that was in favor of ACUM followed. The expert noted such examples underline the importance of having trenchant messages, if there are no circumstances that make the politicians disseminate messages with several connotations. Sincerity in politics is very important, but the politicians should not abuse it and, if the circumstances change and they have to review their viewpoints, the politicians should say it sincerely.

Nicolae Osmochescu, former Constitutional Court judge, said the legal dissolution of Parliament is stipulated and regulated in Article 85 of the Constitution and there are two situations when this can happen – impossibility of forming the Government and non-adoption of laws by Parliament during three months. There are different opinions and speculations about the issue. “They give as example the first Parliament elected in 1990, which dissolved itself. But the legal situation was different then – Parliament was elected in single-member constituencies and self-dissolution was possible in particular conditions. When the Speaker and the members of the presidium resigned, self-dissolution followed. In our case, half of the MPs were elected on party lists, while another half in single-member constituencies,” stated Nicolae Osmochescu.

The judge noted clarity is needed as to what can happen when, for example, all the MPs vacate their seats. This way, in the case of MPs elected on party lists, substitute candidates from the lists replace them mandatorily and the CC validates those seats or not. In such conditions, the Court will have a workload for a period of two-three years, but this is impossible and useless.

If the MPs elected in single-member constituencies vacate their seats, the Electoral Code allows for the organization of new elections in these constituencies. “In such a situation, time is also needed – to call and organize the elections, to validate, etc. The idea is very simple – in both of the cases, neither theoretically nor practically is it possible to act within the time limit needed for reaching ordinary parliamentary elections, not to mention the snap elections. Therefore, the speculations about the self-dissolution of Parliament should be left aside,” said Nicolae Osmochescu.

Political analyst Anatol Țăranu said the politicians who go to the CC to clarify the created situation pursue particular goals. But politics has always meant goals and interests. The authors of the challenge concerning the self-dissolution of Parliament anticipated the CC’s response and knew that such an approach is useless. They nevertheless went to the Court as they needed to gain time and better understand the positions of the main players of this game.

Anatol Țăranu noted the current situation qualifies as a governmental crisis, a political crisis that cannot be solved for now, while the solutions proposed to it are nothing else but an attempt to converge the interests of a number of players who can determine a way out. For now, the positions are very divergent. Even if practically everyone in this Parliament speaks about the necessity of inducing snap parliamentary elections, not everyone is equally interested in having them.

The Agency published 3 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md): on 22.01.21, „Experts “translate” actions and statements of politicians concerning dissolution of Parliament. IPN debate” - https://www.ipn.md/en/experts-translate-actions-and-statements-of-politicians-concerning-dissolution-of-8004_1079214.html; „Nicolae Osmochescu: Snap parliamentary elections can be induced only one way” - https://www.ipn.md/en/nicolae-osmochescu-snap-parliamentary-elections-can-be-induced-only-one-8004_1079216.html; „Anatol Țăranu: Only PAS is interested in having snap elections swiftly” - https://www.ipn.md/en/anatol-taranu-only-pas-is-interested-in-having-snap-elections-8004_1079220.html; on 23.01.21 „ Igor Boțan: Politicians should formulate sincere and trenchant messages” - https://www.ipn.md/en/igor-botan-politicians-should-formulate-sincere-and-trenchant-messages-8004_1079223.html.

Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN