IPN analysis: One of the important criteria by which the events that took place in Moldova in the recent past can be analyzed is the impact that these have on the country’s European course. Valeriu Vasilica uses this criterion in relation to the report of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into the situation at Banca de Economii and to the team of the new political project European People’s Party of Moldova (PPEM).
---
Two important events for the current political landscape in Moldova and, possibly, for the future one took place last week. One is the presentation of the report of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into the financial-banking situation and the other one is the presentation of the new political project of ex-Premier Iurie Leanca. Even if apparently they form part of different areas of the social life, the given events have many things in common and can have a joint and serious impact on the country’s European integration process and prospects.
The common things derive not only from the fact that Iurie Leanca is one of the important players in both of the processes that generated the events: in one case as Premier who took decisions and signed documents, including secret, related to the financial-banking sector, and in another case as initiator and driving force of a party with sufficient chances of asserting oneself and with capacity to contribute to modifying the political spectrum in Moldova. The events are in a rather close interdependence. Sometimes it seems that one of them could not exist with the other one or, at least separately, they would have had much lower social resonance. This is because without Leanca’s project, there wouldn’t have been so great pressure and so much information about Banca de Economii (Savings Bank) and the financial-banking sector in general. Without the theft committed at this bank, it would have been much harder to imagine the appearance and promotion of the Leanca project.
Between state secret and non-furnished information
Let’s take them one by one. The parliamentary commission of inquiry into the situation in the financial-banking sector presented its report. On the one hand, the commission considers that it did its job because it examined the situation and compiled a report by which it gave appraisals and formulated recommendations. But the document is a secret one and the Parliament sitting where the report was examined and approved was held behind closed doors. In ‘normal’ conditions and in a ‘normal’ country, this would be justified and accepted in society because the area is indeed sensitive and particular information can generate considerable destabilization in the financial-banking sector, much more serious than in other areas. This is the way things go all over the world.
But the conditions that existed before the commission was constituted, during its work and after the presentation of the report are far from being ‘normal’. First of all, this is because it was a large-scale, unprecedented theft allegedly of up to one third or one quarter of all the resources of the country’s financial-banking sector. Thus, the financial stability of the state is indeed in danger. Secondly, because it is disseminated information about the presupposed direct or indirect involvement of high-ranking officials of the old and new governments. This generates a great dose of dissatisfaction and anxiety in society. Thirdly, among those who accuse the competent institutions empowered to overcome this situation and government officials are not only the Socialist and Liberal parliamentary opposition, which is absolutely normal, but also MP Iurie Leanca, who most probably knows more than he says now, either for his benefit or to his detriment.
Unhappy transfer for European cause
We should also presume that this state of spirit in society will maintain or will intensify when the commission’s report is made pubic and measures will be taken in accordance with the law, including punishing those to blame and restoring the money. Even if this happens, which is not certain judging by the results of the activity of other parliamentary commissions of inquiry, a lot of time will probably pass and the government’s image will further erode meanwhile. The image of the European option in the country’s development course will also erode in parallel for the simple reason that it is promoted by the pro-European government. We can say that it is a kind of image transfer that is unhappy for the European cause.
Necessary and possible de-secretization
The only solution in this situation is to immediately de-secretize the whole report produced by the commission or with small, inevitable exceptions. It is not only a necessary solution, given the aforementioned reasons, but also a possible one because the administration controls a Government that can de-secretize what the previous Governments made secret, can make the necessary approaches to other competent authorities, can pass legislative amendments in Parliament, etc. It is in the interests of everyone, first of all of the government, which will continue to lose ground, including under the pressure of Iurie Leanca’s political project. The government’s capacity to better manage this equally difficult and dangerous situation could become the next acid test in the relations with the European partners, if it didn’t become already.
PPEM amid disappointment
The new political project of Iurie Leanca, called the European People’s Party of Moldova, was launched amid pronounced disappointment of the voters in the ruling pro-European parties that in the November 30, 2014 elections lost about 250,000 votes compared with the 2010 elections. These people either voted for other parties or didn’t take part in elections. Thus, Leanca’s party can already claim a social base that would secure 15-16 seats of MP for it, if it manages to attract this segment of sufficiently trained and conscious voters. The pace at which the party’s initiative group collected signatures from people who want to join the PPEM in central Chisinau over the last three days confirms such calculations to a certain extent. The good side of the situation generated by the new political project is that it shows that the people’s disappointment in the pro-European parties and, respectively, in the message these promote, is not complete and irrecoverable. Only more honesty, intelligence and professionalism are needed in the communication with the people and the new project’s initiative group showed that they have such qualities.
More political correctness and sincerity
It seems yet that the project already witnesses drawbacks as regards political correctness and sincerity and this arouses concern. Those who vote for the pro-European parties are usually trained persons with a high level of ethics and morality, who rejected and even penalized the practice of airing dirty linen in public, which was used until recently by the pro-European parties and their leaders. They support rather the option ‘for something’ rather than ‘against somebody’, especially against those with whom one will have to cooperate in the future. The leader of the new party Iurie Leanca recurrently showed he is aware of this, but a part of the members of the initiative group seem not to agree with him or this is only ‘partial sincerity’.
For example, asked several days ago about his relationship with his former party chief Vlad Filat, Iurie Leanca said: “I wish there is at least place for greeting between us”. At the same time, some of the leaders of the initiative group said univocally that the PPEM and the Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM) will be opponents. Such emphases appear periodically in the public area.
In fact, it is a call for sincerity and correctness intended equally for the PPEM and PLDM and for other pro-European parties because the hostile relations that characterized principally the communication between these lead to disappointment, fragmentation and real diminution of the social base supporting the European idea in Moldova. Namely these relations hindered and continue to hinder the formation of a majority pro-Europa alliance, putting the country’s European perspective in danger.
If the initiative group of the PPEM is politically fully sincere and correct, it should realize that if the PPEM enters Parliament once, it definitely must not repeat the Party of Communists’ performance of being the only ruling party. It will thus have to cooperate, surely not with such anti-European parties as the Party of Socialists or the Party of Communists, but rather with parties with a close ideology and geopolitical option.
Another reason for which the new PPEM should renounce the ‘Moldovan-like’ political style is the future relations with the European family to which it orients itself – the European People’s Party (EPP). It would be unreal to hope now that it would obtain the withdrawal of the status of EEP member from the PLDM. It thus should cooperate with it at European level too, in a civilized way. This is a reason that the PLDM should also take into consideration. Otherwise, they will have to separately or together assume responsibility for the negative consequences of the loss of the support for Moldova of the largest European party with the greatest weight in the EU bodies. After the confusion concerning the support offered to Klaus Iohannis’ opponent in the presidential elections in Romania, the EPP may not understand another worsening of the situation inside its own family.
Valeriu Vasilică, IPN
