In the July 20 program “Fabrika” on Publika TV channel, Minister of Economy and Infrastructure Kiril  Gaburici shared his view on the future of the economy of the Republic of Moldova. In brief, this view is stated in the title of the given article and this seems encouraging, especially because Minister Gaburici has the image of a competent technocrat who knows the economic and business processes in the country. Evidently, there are also persons who challenge his professional ascent, but it is not the case to refer to this here.

It is definite that in the period when he served as Prime Minister, during February – June 2015, his activity was highly appreciated by representatives of the development partners that sincerely aimed to help him overcome the crisis period that followed the theft of the US$ 1 billion. But three years have passed since then and Kiril Gaburici’s views evolved or, more exactly, changed. Now the view of Minister Gaburici is narrower and more focused than the view of Primer Gaburici three years ago. It’s clear that the Premier is responsible for all the aspects of governance, while a Cabinet member of only the area of which he is in charge, in this case of economy and infrastructure. Furthermore, the technocratic minister Kiril Gaburici now forms part of a governmental team managed by the leader of the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM). This imposes specific requirements that derive from the necessity of promoting the party before the parliamentary elections.

In this connection, the ministers, including the technocratic ones, were advised by the Democratic leader to travel to districts and localities to explain the PDM’s policy to the people and to increase their social optimism. While in Taraclia district last week, Kiril Gaburici did namely this when referred to the maturity crisis of Moldova’s economy, which should be overcome nicely. What should be done for the purpose? The state should be more open to investors! Simple and nice. Open widely the doors to investors, build good roads for Moldova and... A number of questions appear here to which Minister Gaburici could provide competent answers. It is known that the PDM has been in power for nine years since 2009. In these nine years, the ministry of economy, with all the state enterprises, called also government inside the Government, has uninterruptedly been the PDM’s fief, as was the social sphere that is somehow responsible for the quantity and quality of the labor force.

Minister Gaburici also knows about the commitments assumed in written form by the PDM. For those who forgot them, we can easily reproduce them from the electoral programs of the PDM and the government programs where the PDM was responsible for economic development. Starting with 2009, the PDM programs have specified the party’s major objectives: 1) to modernize the economy; 2) to increase the competitiveness of the economy through transition to an economic model based on investments, innovations and quality; 3) to restore the relations of confidence with international donor organizations; 4) uniform economic and social development all over the country; 5) attraction of the investments needed for the economic and social infrastructure: roads,  buildings, services, production, educational, cultural and medical institutions; 6) support for export generating industries and active promotion of the export of Moldovan products, etc. Moreover, for these objectives to have a solid support, the PDM in the parliamentary elections of 2014 pledged to annually attract US$ billion (!) in investments and to make sure that we grow Moldova namely this way!

Now, at a distance of nine years of the moment the PDM pledged to modernize the economy, the technocratic minister of economy says we need yet time to reach a mature economy. In fact, he implicitly answered the question – where was the economic and social infantilism of the governance concentrated on? Correctly, there. That’s why the statements of Minister Kiril Gaburici do not really inspire optimism. The document Informative notes from the development partners that served as guidelines for Premier  Gaburici clearly say that a stable economic environment is absolutely necessary for the business environment and investors and for, the purpose, a fair and independent justice system is needed among others so as to ensure the protection and respect for the basic human rights of each person. In full accord with these findings of the development partners, Prime Minister Gaburici tendered his resignation after he ascertained that his public pleas for the de-politicization of the law enforcement and regulatory agencies were ignored. Moreover, he also said then that the lack of progress in investigating the theft of the US$ 1 billion was due to the fact that the given institutions were politically controlled.   

Three years have passed. Now the senior representatives of the government and the development partners are practically unanimous in their finding that the justice sector reform failed, justice being selective. Now, Minister of Economy and Infrastructure Kiril Gaburici can compare the suggestions of the development partners from the informative notes with the grades given to the government for its accomplishments, which were synthetized in the European Parliament’s Resolution concerning the political crisis in Moldova following the invalidation of the local elections in Chisinau. So, he can honestly answer the question if the Moldovan justice can inspire the potential investors to whom the rulers widely open the doors with confidence.    

However, we should admit that minister Gaburici could be right. The investors, for example, when they eventually face problems could avoid going to court. They could go to the head office of the PDM to solve the problems and defend their investments. This really makes sense as the leader of the PDM is also the president of the Moldova Business People Association. There are already positive practices in this regard. For example, heads of independent public institutions, technocratic ministers and others who should have no relationship with the PDM act so already and even achieve results in their work. With a little phantasy, they can even strengthen the interpersonal relations with the leaders of the PDM, which can be very useful. In this regard, the example of Minister Gaburici is pertinent. His plea for providing all the units of transport that run on high-quality roads of which he is responsible with seatbelts represents expression of very subtle and admirable support for the personal initiative of Parliament Speaker and PDM vice president Andrian Candu- safe driving.

IPN experts