Despite the positive denouement of the political crisis following the formation of the governing alliance and of the new Government, a considerable part of Moldovan society treats with reserve the optimistic statements of the leaders of the Alliance for European Integration (AEI) 3 concerning the solving of the serious internal problems and the resumption of a normal dialogue with the development partners for continuing the country’s European course. Such a conclusion is formulated in the IPN analysis “Secretaries general of … the Republic of Moldova or Programmed dualism” that was published on August 6, 2015. The analysis’s author Valeriu Vasilica provides a series of additional arguments in favor of such a thesis.
One of them is the doubtful sincerity of the high-ranking politicians. “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’.
“Therefore, society now has the right to wonder 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?” asks the author.
Another argument is the permanent, hidden or evident rivalry between the leaders of the pro-European coalition. “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,” says the analysis.
The author considers that 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.
According to the author, another reason for 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.
The same general perception reveals the low quality of the communication that the leaders of the AEI have with the people directly or through social networking sites, mainly because they communicate through specially employed staff. “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,” says the IPN analysis that examines the reasons for the society’s skepticism about the optimistic statements of the high-ranking politicians.
Another series of reasons are related to the uncertain legal status of the ruling coalitions and of the leaders of the parties forming part of these.
