The Government of Moldova is doomed to be a coalition one for a long time as society is very fragmented and votes for parties with different doctrines, consider participants in the 19th public debate “Lessons learned and lessons to be learned. Overcoming and prevention of political crises: role of the political class and society - 1” of the series “Development of political culture by public debates”, that are staged by IPN News Agency.
In the debates, the chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova Vlad Filat said that one of the causes of the political crisis faced by Moldova this spring was the fact that the state institutions were dysfunctional and deviated from the legal norm. Another cause was the deficient communication between the components of the ruling alliance. The politician said he does not regret anything and he would have acted the same way if he had returned to the period before the crises, on condition that better communication was ensured.
The Liberal-Democrat believes that time is needed to show that the ruling parties turned into democratic and functional organizations. He believes that the dangers faced by the current government are not related to the actions of the Communist opposition, but are inside the coalition. “Despite the complications deriving from a coalition government, it is preferable to one-party government owing to the internal control. But in Moldova it immediately turns into competition,” said Vlad Filat, expressing his regret at the fact that owing to the quarrels between politicians, the people didn’t see the good things done during the rule of the Alliance for European Integration.
Ecaterina Mardarovici, executive director of the Women’s Political Club 50/50, said the political crisis was generated by politicians’ resentments. According to her, from the viewpoint of a party, it’s normal to want to win in elections the percentage needed to govern alone, but this is a danger to democracy as in Moldova there are no parties with internal democratic life and courageous members, and the mass media does not have access to party meetings to see how decisions are taken.
Arcadie Barbarosie, director of the Public Policy Institute (IPP), considers that the early elections are an important factor that made the political players to reach a compromise. “This factor was determinant. Many surveys showed that the elections will be disadvantageous for the ruling parties. The pressure exerted by society by statements and attitudes was another factor. The encouragement of the development partners was the third factor,” he stated.
According to Arcadie Barbarosie, the first and most important lesson learned from the political crisis is that Moldova will have coalition governments for a long time, but these governments are not viable. “The governments must understand that besides managing the state, they play an important role in forming the people’s mentality. The communication at internal and external levels is a lesson to be learned. It is also decisive to discuss the decisions taken and their benefits with society,” said the IPP director.
Igor Botan, director of the Association for Participatory Democracy ADEPT and expert of the IPN project, said that when we speak about the solving of the crisis, we want to know what steps the institutions took to overcome it. “The party leaders should have taken more actions to solve the crisis. During the crisis, the coalition government became a real institution. The last agreement of the coalition inspire s a positive feeling that those who accumulated negative experience ultimately understood that things must be put in order,” said the expert.
He also said that the agreement of the Pro-European Coalition is a model for relatively viable alliance governments, but society should not be naïve as the component parties will always reach accords behind the scenes.
The 19th public debate “Lessons learned and lessons to be learned. Overcoming and prevention of political crises: role of the political class and society - 1” of the series “Development of political culture by public debates” are organized with support from the German foundation “Hanns Siedel”.
