The stakes of the political players in the context of the presidential elections are diametrically opposed. A candidate of the left formulates objectives in socioeconomic terms, terms of the power (constitutional reform, internal stability) and geopolitical terms (pro-Russian course, Russia – main strategic partner). On the other hand, a candidate of the right formulates fully different objectives. This does not borrow much of the socioeconomic agenda and his/her message focuses primarily on ethical principles, such as “purification”, “moral cleaning”, “uprightness”, political commentator Cornel Ciurea stated in IPN’s public debate “Stakes of presidential elections in view of political class and society”.
“The sides formulate diametrically opposed objectives and we are trying to find the common element of these objectives, stakes, considering that the political players can reach a consensus from different barricades. I consider something like this is not possible.”
According to the commentator, the goal of political players is to underline the difference, in any form. “The secret of victory in the campaign resides in complete difference against the others. We yet try to find the strategic stake after the elections: a geopolitical, political-constitutional one (President strengthens his power by the constitutional reform) or snap parliamentary elections (rebuilding of a parliamentary majority). We try to guess how the political life will develop, receiving an impetus from the presidential elections – what direction the political life will follow and what element of the mentioned ones is central. This is also the strategic stake of these election, but we don’t know is and each of us formulates it differently,” explained Cornel Ciurea.
Making reference to an article of Vadim Pistrinciuc, executive director of the Institute for Strategic Policies and Initiatives, the political commentator reiterated the three stakes of civil society: rebuilding of the social contract; solid political institutions, and fight against corruption. “Mister Pistrinciuc formulates the fourth interpretation, starting from the pro-European agenda. This the fourth view. We have different views on the same process, the fundamental stake, but do not have a final answer,” he concluded.
The public debate “Stakes of presidential elections in view of political class and society” was the 154th installment of the series “Developing political culture through public debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
