IPN analysis: Many people have recently gone through another long period of pronounced dualism. On the one hand, we had to admit that the messages disseminated by the leaders of the pro-European parties during the negotiations to form the governing coalition and to invest the Government were correct, needed and expected. On the other hand, we realized that we do not really believe in them and this is a quasi-total perception in Moldovan society. Where does this state to the limit of normality come from?
---
There are a number of reasons why a considerable part of Moldovan society is not impressed by the optimistic, including pro-European, messages of the leaders and other notable representatives of the parties of the ruling coalition, even if these want very much to impress the people. Some of these reasons were elucidated in the previous IPN analysis “Last pro-European alliance of Moldova”, especially in the news item based on it, entitled “AEI: diminution of credibility, step by step”, which were both published on July 24, 2015. But because the list of reasons is much longer and their impact on society is significant, we will continue to examine them, eventually, in the descending order of their weight.
How many times the wolf attacks the sheep or the pitcher goes to the well?
Even if we realize that politics is not always a sincere matter, we anyway have to ascertain that the optimistic statements without coverage in very important matters have been so far formulated more often that it would be acceptable. Society is prepared enough to distinguish between real things and imitations, while the most recent examples refer to the (in)sincerity of the political class to accept having a European prosecutor as a condition for forming the governing alliances, fighting corruption and returning the ‘stolen billion’. Another conclusive example of the optimistic statements without overage is the statements made after the previous, minority alliance that was presented as a ‘concrete’ one was formed. But this alliance fell apart shortly afterward and the leaders of the pro-European parties in an as short period of time admitted to the fragility of another ‘concrete’.
The question put now by many of those who regarded the then statements with skepticism is not only why the given leaders had to treat us it with so much insincerity, but also if the ‘difficult’ and ‘long’ negotiations of the end of last year and of the start of this year hadn’t been a scenario that was well-planned by all the ‘senior’ participants in the talks, with a well programmed ending, for particular goals known by them only, which can be achieved better in conditions of uncertainty and instability? The logic is the following: if the previous alliance wasn’t possible including because of the condition concerning the prosecutor general and now the European prosecutor ‘proposed’ by one of the candidates for premiership wasn’t accepted by those who imposed such a condition earlier, it means that the real reason wasn’t the prosecutor, but another one or several ones. Which ones?
We have the right to put such questions and other questions of the kind because, otherwise, we will have to suspect the leaders also of complete inability to negotiate really important things for the country and for themselves. We cannot know if it was this way or another way and this is a big social danger.
Partner-enemy politicians
The leaders of the current pro-European coalition and of the other previous democratic configurations have been permanently in evident and hidden rivalry and the rare pauses in the ‘natural’ for them state of things can no longer convince the people that ‘this time it will be different’ and ‘it will be a coalition made of concrete’. We thus have to also look behind the current, optimistic pro-European and ‘solidary’ statements and the manifestation of harsh rivalries for, possibly, greater spheres of influence, greater control over the state institutions and for other legal or less legal interests. The process of (non)naming Maia Sandu as a candidate for Prime Minister gives us a new reason for being skeptical and concerned about the declared peaceful cooperation between the members of the AEI 3, aimed at achieving the optimistically announced objectives, including the European integration one. In fact, the unhealthy rivalry between the leaders of the ruling parties was and is typical for all the periods of existence of Moldova, with often destructive effects for the country’s chances to go on, so that we have to admit that this is also a problem that needs to be solved, including by legislative ways.
What do the politicians know about our knowledge of them?
Another subjective reason of the insufficient confidence in the leaders of the pro-European parties, respectively, in the governing coalition, is suggested by the general perception that these do not know almost anything about the reaction that their behavior and optimistic statements cause in Moldovan society. Regretfully for them and for the atmosphere in society, and for the European integration chances of the country, there are now very few or no discussion communities, including on the street, in the kitchen, inside staffs where the supporters of the ruling political class would risk to make a positive assessment without being penalized, in the best case for lack of good manners. The impression is that the leaders do not know about the own image in our eyes, not even as much as they knew in the period of the negotiations and government that were conventionally called ‘principles and values’ because since then they didn’t impose other restrictions and modifications in the language and behavior on themselves. This can mean that the leaders do not communicate with society or communicate not much, or the communication is not a qualified one by which to obtain a kind of real feedback on the part of society.
One-way communication
An impression deduced from the previous impression is that the leaders of the AEI do not have qualified communication with the people at least through social networking sites, mainly because they communicate through ‘intermediaries’ as ‘in the government’. It is not an accusation, but a conclusion. The political leaders are very busy persons and we cannot demand that they should deal also with the reading and writing of messages about them on networking sites and blogs. There is specially employed staff for the purpose and, most probably, it is an international, legal and moral practice. But the staffs of the Moldovan leaders are not so professional in disseminating credible promotional and critical messages through networking sites and in assessing the critical or even destructive messages applying to their chiefs. Most of the times, the staffs, ‘information’ websites and individual mercenaries understand the one-way ‘communication’ in one way – that they should attack the political rivals of the political chiefs, usually from among the coalition ‘partners’, without limits and discernment. But because of this ‘communication’ the people are always shocked or frightened. Even if the staffs, websites, subtle mercenaries and ‘media killers’ always hide behind the finger and even if the attacks are sufficiently disproportionate as power of pressure exerted on different AEI leaders, the final effect is that they are all equally discredited in the people’s eyes, according to the popular appreciation principle “a bullock and a trouble equally”. This means that the leaders like, praise, understand, encourage and pay for this.
A viable theme without ‘political analysts in the service of political leaders’
But the most serious reason for such a state of dualism in society, as the leaders of the pro-European coalition consider, resides in the double role played by these in relation to society and the bodies of the power in the state for a period. We can probably speak about their dualism too, which they may not realize.
The theme concerning the withdrawal of the leaders of the ruling parties from the key state posts was discussed earlier too, but, given that it was raised again in specific periods, related either to the elections or to the formation of the bodies of power, the approach could have been conjectural and speculative. A suspicion for such an approach was recently ‘caught’ in the public sphere by the IPN news “Future alliance is looking for a puppet Premier”, which was published on July 16, 2015. The suspicion formulated by the source from the news article, concerning ‘analysts who serve the political leaders’ has the right to life, including for the aforementioned reasons.
But this does not mean that because of the given reason, a veto can be used on a theme that is not less important and vulnerable than the method of electing the head of state, or even more important, given the mainly representative powers of the President of the Republic of Moldova compared with those of the Prime Minister and Head of Parliament of the Republic of Moldova. Thus, when there is a period of three years and a half until the next parliamentary elections by an optimistic scenario and almost a year by less optimistic scenarios, we consider it opportune to return, ‘in the period of peace’, to this theme that initiated including by the IPN analyses “Kroll report: fatal delay”, of April 27, 2015, and “National importance of local elections”, of June 6, 2015.
Political leaders manage the country from political offshore area
In a TV program last weekend, the leaders of the AEI assured that they will not interfere in the work of the Government, if only ‘slightly’ , ‘in delicate matters”. The ‘careful’ formulation of the statements shows that the AEI leaders realized, even if partially, the lack of legal reason for the practically unlimited influence they exert on the institutions and government officials in Moldova. However, even these formulations confirm the general perception that the given interference existed and continues to exist and that the high-ranking politicians consider that this is a sacred right of theirs because ‘the people vote parties in elections’.
However, even if the people vote parties, the legislation, including the country’s Constitution, clearly provides who exerts the power in the name of the people: the President, Government, Parliament and other central and local public authorities. It says nothing or almost nothing about parties, party leaders, party alliances, alliance agreements, alliance councils, alliance leaders and other derivative bodies. This means that in the absence of other legal provisions, the leaders and the councils find themselves pushed or ‘self-placed’ in the offshore area of the Moldovan politics, from where they ‘successfully’ manage the affairs in the country, with instruments typical of the offshore area. That’s why the important decisions for the country are taken not by the constitutional bodies, but by the bodies from the offshore area. In practice this means several private individuals with the NGO-like status of party leader or, in the worst variant, one person with or without this NGO-like status. The use of ‘self-placed’ is not accidental here because this time again the leaders of the AEI told us serenely that they agreed that none of them will occupy key state posts.
Moldovan invention with Soviet origins
The renouncing by the leaders of the parties that won the elections of the top state posts or, in particular cases, the ban on holding them is a purely Moldovan invention, which is allegedly very profitable, in this period of transition. In the countries with democratic traditions, including those from the EU, to which we say we are heading, there are no such practices. Nevertheless, there is a historical analogy. In the former USSR, the highest post was that of secretary general of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, while the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of this Communist Party was the most important collective body. For a long period, the western state leaders could not meet with the Soviet party leaders. That’s why, for external use, there were invented the posts of chairman of the Soviet of the People’s Commissioners, of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, etc. But these remained only fictions because all the decisions were taken at party level, by the secretary general and the Political Bureau. However, those fiction-posts were also held by the top party leader, not by intermediaries. The first and last president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev ruled for a short period and was ousted also because the post was not typical of the party system.
How many secretaries general does Moldova have?
The analogy is not complete and is not in favor of the current supra-body managing Moldova, no matter how strange and macabre such an assessment can sound. In the Soviet period, everyone knew the secretary general and the other secretaries of the Central Committee and the composition of the Political Bureau. This nominal and hierarchic ‘transparency’ offered inside and outside a certain dose of predictability of the county’s course. Does someone in our country know the real relations between the AEI leaders or inside the AEI? If we know something, these are only rumors disseminated mainly from inside the ruling alliance and these can suggest neither predictability, nor guarantees or remedies for concerns.
For example, one of the most spread rumors is that the leaders of the three ruling parties on which the country’s fate and the fate of each of us depends greatly are actually four in number, or they are three, but not those who act officially. Or there is only one person who is not even a top party leader and who even stopped being an MP several days ago. Can someone say how many secretaries general… does Moldova have?
When Deng Xiaoping withdrew from the public posts, everyone, inside and outside, knew that namely was is the de facto leader of China. We do not know who and how rules us, our government and state institutions because not even the party leaders or the Council of the Alliance and its members have a legal status. They do not have rights and obligations which everyone would know and respect. De facto, the most important decision-making body of the country - the Council of the Alliance – does not have at least a schedule of meetings that the press and society would know or at least a press service or a spokesman that would anyway not tell many things, but would at least keep up some elementary democratic and legal appearances.
Legal framework for AEI and AEI leaders
Nobody says that the party leaders and alliance councils are something evil. On the contrary, now that the epoch of one ruling party passed, we hope irreversibly, we will continue to have ruling alliances. But this essential modification in the political life must also find refection in the legislation, in the rules of the game in society. We urgently need legislative clarity on a lot of issues, including: who, how and when forms governing coalitions; who and how can negotiate this process; how much information and in what form can be provided to society that has this right in accordance with the Constitution; what is the status of the Alliance, the Council and its members; what is the subsequent relationship of the Alliance and the party leaders with the bodies of the state power; who has and who does not have the right to occupy the key posts in the state and if this thing is decided by the leaders and parties or it is mandatory, for example, for the post of Prime Minister to be occupied by the leader of the party with the highest number of seats in Parliament? There are also other urgent questions that appeared in the difficult and unstable period through which we go, including if the growing instability and worsening difficulties are the result of the aforementioned ambiguities, or if the legal amendments weren’t made consciously or because it was an omission?
Dangerous precedent
We should remember that the problem became more evident especially at the start of 2013, when the political crisis was at its height and when the Filat Government was dismissed by Parliament on suspicion of acts of corruption, while the Constitutional Court decided that the persons dismissed this way can no longer occupy key state posts. Such irrevocable decisions are not discussed, but are implemented. But such decisions can be also reviewed, if the essence of the problem and its effects are considered. The essence resides in the fact that a political decision voted in Parliament by the political opponents for political reasons was based on unproven accusations of criminal illegalities. For their part, these unproven assertions laid at the basis of the judicial decision of the Constitutional Court. By this procedure, the presumption of innocence was violated and a dangerous precedent was set, which interrupted the difficult, but normal course of things in the political process in Moldova.
‘Shadow’ as goal and value
In fact, in the same period, other political players voted for the dismissal of the President, and, apparently, also of the first Deputy Head of Parliament, because of the political rivalry in relation to the party that fielded them for the posts and that initiated/supported the dismissal of the Government. And this was a political decision based on political reasons, which, unlike the penal ones, must not be proven. In the political struggle, it is the number of votes gathered for one decision or another that counts the most. Surely, the ‘suspicions of corruption’ or other serious illegalities could be used as a pretext in this case too and nobody would bother or would be obliged to prove them. It’s strange that nobody has so far used this ‘cudgel’ in relation to the dismissal decisions based on political criteria or another kind of punishment at the level of village, communal, district or municipal councils, for example. But it is not certain that this precedent, set by the Constitutional Court, will not be widely used in the confrontation with the political opponents. And the last: it seems that exactly after that decision of the Constitutional Court, all the suspected or not suspected political leaders, decided that it is better to be in the ‘shadow’ than in the post. After that, the ‘shadow’ became a virtue and a general goal.
Ion Sturza: “puppeteers on the platform”
So, it would be rational to lay down, within the legal adjustments concerning the ruling alliances and the relations of the party leaders with the state bodies, that the party leaders should occupy the key state posts. The argument that ‘it happens so in the whole world’ is not the only one and not the most important one. The informal leaders of the parties must also become the formal leaders of the state, especially in order to personally assume responsibility for the smooth running of things in the country and to also be held accountable for the wrong or criminal decisions that they take, by their personal signatures, not by the signatories of intermediaries. Somebody can now remember the danger posed by ‘political analysts who are in the service of political leaders’, but nobody can put on this list ex-Premier Ion Sturza, who, ten days ago, wrote on a social networking site: “We had enough puppets and puppeteers in key posts. That’s enough! If not, the puppeteers should come onto the platform and should assume responsibility for the country! That’s enough! Some steal, while other must do reforms, maintain prices and pay salaries and pensions. That’s enough… Some pseudo-governors, prosecutors and judges live in exorbitant luxury surrounded by bodyguards and ’fairies’, while others can hardly make ends meet with their miserable salaries and pensions”.
Three months and ten days ago, IPN promoted the same idea, but in a more moderate tone: “It would be hard to invent a more favorable situation for somebody who wants to benefit from everything, but to answer for nothing”.
Before the ’driving away from Heaven’ and after it
To confirm the above-mentioned theses, it is enough to admit that the ugliest things or the things that we suspect to be ugly happened in our country in periods after the ’driving away’ of the political leaders from the key posts, not before this, including the concession of the Chisinau International Airport, the ‘sale’ of Banca de Economii and its ‘restoration’ and, surely, what we call the ‘theft of the century’, with all its political, economic and social consequences.
After the ‘driving away’ or ‘withdrawal’ of these, the leader from the Kremlin hasn’t met with any of the high-ranking leaders from our country and it is presumed that besides the many other reasons he has, he also does not want to have meeting with interlocutors without the right to a final decision. The most serious bans were imposed amid similar circumstances, but these weren’t overcome and it’s not known when and who could overcome them.
The worsening of the relations between Moldova and the EU is related mainly to this phenomenon. The key reason is the worsening of the situation inside the country, but, as we agreed, such a state of affairs is generated mainly by the uncertain status of the formal and informal leaders of Moldova. The European leaders and bodies have lost confidence in the partners from Chisinau, some of whom have the right to decide without many responsibilities, while the others have partial rights and responsibilities. We can presume that the signing of the Association Agreement and of the agreement on the liberalization of the visa regime in 2014 was more due to inertia from the past period and the halt in the Moldova – EU relations in a number of areas is a proof of this.
Careful reasons for optimism
Several days after the investiture of the new Government, there were felt a number of serious signals that fuel the people’s hope for an improvement in the state of affairs. These include the appointment of Valeriu Strelet as Prime Minister and the formation of the new Government and the addressing of the most painful issues, including the investigation into the stealing committed in the banking sector, the electricity and gas tariffs, the remedying of the financial situation and the hasty unblocking of the relations with the development partners, including the EU, and others. But given that we felt such a sensation earlier too, we will have to be attentive for a period, if not skeptical, until we can deduce the position of the main decision makers in this country, if we can deduce it ...
Theme for revolution
Amid the suggestions of several active protest movements of the country, there are also other proposals for remedying the difficult situation in Moldova, including removing the current ruling parties and their leaders from power. It is the right of society to protest and the obligation of society to protest, if it wants changes. But nobody fully explains the methods for achieving this goal and assumes responsibility for the possible destructive effects. The revolutions bring chaos and bring the wheel of history back to the initial point. In the previous elections, the ‘better’ parties and the leaders with ‘increased care for the people’ could not convince society to vote for them. There were mainly voted those who were voted until now. That’s why we should make effort to ensure first of all their legality so as to get rid of the long and programed duality.
Valeriu Vasilică, IPN
P.S. To calm down those who are suspicious: the aforementioned reasons have the goal of encouraging the political class to adjust the legal framework for being implemented during the next electoral cycle. But, as we are not fully sure that this cycle will not start next year, this effort will have to be made simultaneously with the preparations for the future election of the President of the Republic of Moldova. In particular conditions, this could be a goal that deserves the attention of the protest movements…
V.V., IPN
