“Anyway, the programmatic documents of the PSRM and the actions of the party’s leaders turned out to be inciting, making the citizens move to the opposite pole of the political preferences. This way, the main conclusion is that the hazardous actions of the PSRM actually represent steps towards the Union for society in general. If so, good luck!..”
---

Money makes the mare go

The governmental crisis turns the people’s attention to the polemics and statements of politicians. We convinced ourselves not only once that the politicians usually say what the voters would like to hear, but do what’s suitable for them. There are multiple conclusive examples and several of them deserve to be mentioned amid the current crisis. For example, we remember that before and immediately after the parliamentary elections of February 2019, Maia Sandu assured her voters: “We will not form a coalition with the Democratic Party or with the Party of Socialists”. In several months, in June, they did the opposite and formed a coalition with the Socialists. Or the current Parliament would have been dissolved long ago and snap parliamentary elections would have been held on September 6, 2019. Five months later, the ACUM-PSRM coalition fell apart and the PSRM formed a new parliamentary majority with the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM). In that context, Igor Dodon, after investing the Chicu Government with the votes of the PSRM and PDM in November 2019, stated for TASS Agency: “The PSRM will not form a coalition with the PDM because this is a toxic party”. However, in only several months, in March 2020, the PSRM and the PDM formalized their relations, forming a coalition.

Currently, we have practically the same situation. The PSRM and the Shor Party formed a majority similar to that of the PSRM and the PDM of November 2019, but are ashamed to admit that they allied as the leader of the PSRM considers the MPs of the Shor Party serve the mafia and bandits. This way, there should be no doubts that in several months of the eventual voting in of the Durleșteanu Government, the PSRM and the Shor Party will form an alliance as we known that money makes the mare go.

Promising aberrations...  

We convinced ourselves that the politicians change their opinions and attitudes more often that the hygienic accessories. However, it is important to make sure that there are particular limits for their disgraceful maneuvers. The statutes and political programs of the parties should clearly set the limits of these maneuvers. But the realties show that the statutory documents have practically no value. This way, recently the PSRM adopted its new political program whose provisions were immediately violated by the party’s leader. It happened when Igor Dodon fielded Mariana Durleșteanu for Prime Minister.

Indeed, one the one hand, the party’s new program clearly provides that “the PSRM is for banning persons with dual nationality from holding the highest public posts: President, Prime Minister, Parliament Speaker, judges of the Constitutional Court”. On the other hand, public opinion was informed ten years ago that Mariana Durleșteanu regained her Romanian nationality. It’s true that in the case of Missis Durleșteanu, there is an attenuating factor – she regained the Romanian nationality on May 9, 2011. Now, so as to comply with the programmatic provisions are least slightly, the leaders of the PSRM should clarify one thing in Mariana Durleșteanu’s attitudes: for her May 9 is Europe Day or Victory Day?

Regrettably, we can say with certitude that the leader of the PSRM Igor Dodon lost the quality of tester that he successfully used when Nicolae Timofti was voted in as President, etc. So, after the nomination, it turned out that Mariana Durleșteanu does not match the programmatic standards of the PSRM together with the theses of the Roadmap for overcoming the crisis in Moldova:

• mentioning of Moldova’s European Course, not of the course to the East, as the new program of the PSRM provides;
• adoption of the Emergency Program with the IMF and the foreign partners so as to  ensure the reforms and financial support, not with the Eurasian Development Bank  (EDB) or the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), as the PSRM’s political program stipulates.

In fact, Mariana Durleșteanu’s intentions do not matter much. What matters is that the leaders of the PSRM want to remain in power even if they flagrantly violate the provisions of the statutory and programmatic documents of the party. This is not surprising. It happened similarly when the transitional government of Ion Chicu was invested. The latter, besides holding Romanian nationality, also insists on the union of the Republic of Moldova with the European Union, proposing even a package of reforms to this effect.

So, we can see that the PSRM’s political program is not worth a damn either we refer to the old program or to the new one. As regards the voters of the PSRM, these are yet many in number, but... are far from understanding the undertones of the behavior of the Socialist elites that overnight became conservative, evidently for personal interests. They want to remain in power at any cost!  

Conclusions

The Moldovan politicians of any leaning say one thing, but do another one. That’s why we should also analyze their deeds and statistics about the processes that accompany their actions. In this regard, after the election of Igor Dodon as President of the Republic of Moldova in 2016, contrary to the programmatic provisions of the PSRM, he named to posts only persons who hold Romanian nationality as well – Maia Sandu, Ion Chicu and Mariana Durleșteanu. This is actually a confirmation of the fact that most of the talented and professional people in the county more or less want the Republic of Moldova to join the EU.

According to opinion polls, in the period after the election of the leader of the PSRM as President, the number of Moldovans who are for Moldova’s reunification with Romania rose from 12% in 2016 to 37% in 2020. No other political leader contributed so much to the rapprochement between the Republic of Moldova and Romania. Nevertheless, we must realize that the rapprochement with Romania occurred not due to the PSRM’s efforts, but despite them. Anyway, the programmatic documents of the PSRM and the actions of the party’s leaders turned out to be inciting, making the citizens move to the opposite pole of the political preferences. This way, the main conclusion is that the hazardous actions of the PSRM actually represent steps towards the Union for society in general. If so, good luck!