The main purpose of the government program approved by the Parliament of Moldova last week is to set out the country's development course in the immediate future and, eventually, in a historic prospect. Surely, it would have been another program and another development course if a center-left coalition had been formed. The program titled “Freedom, Democracy, Welfare” represents the first and main document whereby the center-right coalition – the Alliance for European Integration-2 – was legally institutionalized even if the agreement to form the ruling alliance has not been made public and does not form part of the documents required by law. Therefore, the approved program is the government program of the AEI rather than of the new Cabinet and is designed to mark the de facto completion of the process of constituting the new government coalition and, respectively, of the unprecedented political negotiations. Now that things became clearer, we will focus on their momentary effects and prospects. [Post-electoral talks: end of unitary era] The political talks that followed the last legislative elections were wide, multidimensional, dramatic and the first of the kind in the country's modern history. They marked the de facto end of the era of unitary government with Soviet, even tsarist roots and the beginning of the coalition government period, which, for its part, marked the start of the country's political modernization. During the talks, it became obvious that what happened after the July 2009 elections, when the AEI-1 was formed, were not really conscious negotiations. Thus, the government that ruled during more than one year was not truly a coalition government. The need to modify the country's government model from unitary to coalition was recognized by all the important political players who, after November 28, 2010, held serious talks with high stakes. Until recently, the Communists Party (PCRM) - the party that has had the largest number of seats in the last legislative bodies - hoped to return to power and built its behavior in Parliament and the relations with the political opponents and the potential partners from this perspective. The return to governance by one 'good', 'powerful' party that 'represents everyone' is now impossible also because society, as social basis for parties, is fragmented and varied. The post-electoral talks showed that the “unity of the only party and the people” only now came to an end. [Two models of talks] Talks were conducted on the center-right and center-left segments. The center-right talks lasted longer and kept the people in suspense. Often, the leaders of the three parties – the PLDM, PDM and PL – risked their own image and the image of their party when they negotiated as they considered right and took decisions or delayed taking them. The expectations of the supporters of the center-right alliance were great and the leaders delayed meeting them. If new parliamentary elections had been held in that period, all the three parties would have been affected by the uncertainty into which they plunged society. The transparency of the center-right negotiations was truncated and formal. These talks gave the impression that the politicians considered the ordinary people to be 'fools' as they often refused to say what they discussed during a new round of negotiations. Nevertheless, this model of talks is preferable, maybe for the initial period, to the model of center-left talks that involved the PCRM and PDM. They were even less transparent and sincere and the approach as regards the people's right to be informed, in particular the voters' right to know how their votes will be use, was different. In the case of the center-right talks, the day, hour and place of the negotiations were known beforehand and the political leaders accepted the democratic game to appear before the press and society and provide explanations even if they often gave few details. The leaders taking part in the center-left talks assured the people that things go “very well”, a number of problems were “successfully” tackled and the negotiations advanced, and that a government coalition was close to be formed. They often refused to talk to the reporters. Some of the meetings had been held in secret . The fact that the Communist leader Vladimir Voronin paid a visit to the Democrat leader Marian Lupu at the PDM's head office was also not known. That visit seemed to be historical judging by the unprecedented signs transmitted through it. This model of talks derives mainly from the authoritarian past, when one person or one state-party decided instead of us what , when and how much we should know. In this case, the politicians continued to treat us like “fools”. If everything went so well, why didn't they form a center-left government coalition? Only after the talks, one of the parties admitted that the center-left negotiations were also marked by disagreements. Are we yet sure that we were told everything and that society would have not been exposed to great dangers if the PCRM and PDM had formed a government coalition? {Other distinctive features of the post-electoral talks of 2010 will be treated in part 2 of the Info-Prim Neo analysis “Where and how does Moldova go?”} [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]