 |
|
| Dionis Cenuşa | |
The situation in Moldova was the subject of debate in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on November 25. The MEPs took that occasion to highlight the multitude of problems faced by Moldova, which in 2009-2014 was considered a ‘success story’. Among the discussed topics were the bank frauds, the antigovernment protests, the animosities between the ruling parties and the delay in reforms.
Most of the participants in the debates criticized the Moldovan politicians for lack of political responsibility and pursuit of own political interests, but also demanded that those to blame for the bank frauds should be punished and that corruption should be combated. The European Commission’s representatives Christos Stylianides noted that the current political leaders in Chisinau contributed to capturing the state and to distancing the people. Russia was reproached for significantly contributing to the worsening of the situation in Moldova.
The MEPs called upon the Moldovan politicians to have a dialogue so as to break the political deadlock, restore the people’s confidence and reduce the distance between government and society. In this respect, both the European People’s Party and Social-Democrats expressed their readiness to facilitate the dialogue between the ruling parties so that these formed a pro-European government. However, any mediation on the part of the European bodies was excluded by the EU, the mediation through the political channels of the pan-European parties being the only acceptable method.
Mediation from a distance
The involvement of the pan-European parties in the facilitation of dialogue between the declared pro-European parties of Moldova is not something unordinary because the PLDM, PDM and PL are affiliated to the European People’s Party (EPP), the Party of European Socialists (PES) and, respectively, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). Therefore, in the debates in Strasbourg, the three parties, in particular the EPP and PES, were urged to exercise their influence so that the Moldovan parties (PLDM, PL, PDM and PPEM) reach a consensus. In reality, except for holding discussions, the pan-European parties have no efficient lever to convince the leaders of the Moldovan parties to conclude a political pact. Moreover, though they expressed their wish to provide assistance, the ALDE, PES and EPP had a negative experience with the so-called pro-European parties in Chisinau (except for the PPEM). In January 2015, at the Chisinau airport, the leaders of the EPP, ALDE and PES become personally involved in the negotiations between the PLDM, PDM and PL. The latter ones ignored yet Europeans’ efforts and formed a minority government, with the PL refusing to join in. Learning from the failure of this January, the representatives of the EPP, PES and ALDE initiated a mediation process, but without travelling to Chisinau, choosing for now to facilitate the dialogue between the PLDM, PDM, PL and PPEM from a distance. Thus, the representatives of the pro-European parties had discussions with the leaders of the four Moldovan parties through a video conference, the PLDM being urged to support the formation of a new government.
What did those from the European People’s Party say?
The representatives of the European People’s Party, of which the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova forms part and which Iurie Leanca’s party also wants to join, were the most active ones at the debates in Strasbourg. These focused on the problem of oligarchs who control the Moldovan political parties and the noxious effects of corruption on institutions. Those from the European People’s Party were among those few who leveled harsh criticism at Russia, which was accused of propaganda and imposition of economic sanctions against Moldova because this chose to come closer to the EU. These also underlined the importance of offering a European perspective to Moldova so as to counterbalance the Russian factor. However, it seems that the preoccupation with Russia’s influence on Moldova is bigger than that with the irresponsible attitude of the declared pro-European parties, which actually contributed the most to discrediting the EU and the European integration process among Moldovans.
The Social-Democrats criticize
The Social-Democrats leveled harsh criticism at the Moldovan political class for the fact that they keep the country in ‘a state of chronic crisis’, warning the ruling parties that they have the last chance to remedy the situation. Moreover, Moldova was presented as a source of danger for the European security, owing to the high corruption level that could allow using the country as a convenient route for the illicit trade in armament. The MEPs urged to maintain the European course of Moldova and to prevent its slide into a ‘zone of fear’ where Ukraine is now. The effective implementation of reforms, ensuring of transparency at institutions, visible fight against corruption and identification and punishment of those who are to blame for the frauds committed in the banking system were among the major demands uttered by the Social-Democrats.
Liberals disappointed
The Liberals spoke about the progress made by Moldova in 2009-2014, noting that only regression was seen after 2014 and this affected the country’s status of Eastern Partnership leader. According to the former rapporteur for Moldova Petras Auštrevičius, MEP of the ALDE, Moldova is associated with ‘political chaos’. He also signaled that the tensions in society can explode, given the people’s dissatisfaction with the current government. As in the case of the other parliamentary groups, the Liberals perceive the political realities in Moldova rather mistakenly as the parties that are now criticized by the MEPs for the frauds committed in the banking sector, excessive level of corruption, oligarchization of the political power and others are those that managed the country since 2009. These parties used from the very beginning the European integration objective when they distributed the political power, the state institutions and different economic areas with important financial flows. Consequently, it’s time for the European side to admit that the made progress (for example, the liberalization of the visa regime with the EU) was rather accidental than the result of a sincere and irreversible European integration process.
Instead of conclusion…
At the debates in Strasbourg, there were no positive appraisals of the current situation in Moldova, in contrast to the debates on Georgia, where the latter one, despite the intense criticism, was described as the leading Eastern Partnership country. The MEPs also avoided uttering the names of the so-called pro-European parties accused of politicizing the institutions, inefficiently fighting corruption and delaying reforms. So, the EPP, ALDE and PES used rather general formulations (political class, political elite, ruling parties) instead of naming the involved Moldovan parties (PLDM, PDM, PL). These yet mentioned openly the representatives of the opposition – the Moldovan Socialists and Communists – which is associated with Russia. Also, the MEPs didn’t refer at all to the urgent necessity of reformation, renewal or ‘cleaning’ of the ruling parties, even if they recognized the corrupt nature of these. Thus, even if the crisis faced by Moldova confirms the fact that the “Europeanization” of the so-called pro-European parties of Moldova failed (see article “Failed Europeanization” of Moldovan political elite”), the MEPs prefer to further ignore this aspect.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.
