Presse Release

about the organization of the debate “The extra-parliamentary opposition: real alternative to the power, game of the power, political game on one’s own. The culture of political relations between the government and extra-parliamentary opposition” within the project “Developing political culture in public debates. Series of public debates held by Info-Prim Neo news agency in its conference room”, supported by German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”

The sixth debate of the series took place on June 7, 2012 and concluded a mini-series of three debates about the culture of political relations between government, parliamentary oppositions and extra-parliamentary opposition. The participants were: Ion Hadarca, head of the Liberal Party parliamentary faction and member of the AIE council, Alexandra Can, deputy leader of the National Liberal Party and former minister of industry, Mihai Petrache, leader of the Centrist Union Party and former presidential counselor, Nicolae Andronic, head of the Republican People’s Party, former deputy speaker and former first deputy prime minister, Andrei Dumbraveanu, secretary general of the Ecologist Party “The Green Alliance”, Daniela Bodrug, deputy leader of the Antimafia People’s Movement Party. The roles of experts were filled in by Ion Tabarta, deputy director of the Institute of Analysis and Political Consultancy Politicon, and Igor Botan, director of the Association for Participative Democracy ADEPT.

The high ranks of guests, the diversity of political movements represented by them, the calm tone and richness of arguments raised the debate to a solid, professional and cultivated level of political communication between representatives of parties with sometimes fully conflicting goals.

The participants debated a plethora of important aspects of the topic such as objective and subjective reasons, experience, tradition, education, the will to modernize the political relations between power and opposition, legislation, active-passive/ constructive-intransigent types of opposition, the opposition’s expectations of the government and the power’s expectation of the extra-parliamentary opposition, the parties’ system of functioning, the financing of parties, the electoral threshold, Moldova’s development vector disputed between the government and the extra-parliamentary opposition, national interest vs. political interest or party interest, etc.

The central message of the debate regarded the need to institutionalize the relations between power and opposition, which could raise the level of culture of these relations, and the opposition’s need to unify its efforts in relation to the government.

This debate in particular, like the last debates organized within the project, has shown that political actors are willing to have an educated and practical dialogue, but they need to be pushed in this direction. This is precisely the goal of the project “Developing political culture in public debates”.

Another trend in recent debates, continued with the last one, unlike the first, is that the majority of guests do show up, even though they have high positions and a busy schedule. This allows us to consider that the Moldovan political class begins to get used to the norms promoted by the project. The tone of discussions is more controlled and cool, including the messages of some participants previously known for their harsh style of communication.

A similar trend developed during the last debates is that participants stay to continue the dialogue between themselves or with the press during the coffee break, called “peace-making” in the project. This is another proof the project’s necessity and usefulness.

The previous episode of the project brought to the surface some organization issues that need to be addressed. Usually, there are too many guests so that there is little time for everyone to have his or her say. When everyone of them seems a rich source of information and precious views on the discussed topics, it seems a waste of information resources. On the other hand, there are so many invited participants because the topics are vast and involve many and diverse actors. Another reason for the high number of guests is the experience of the first debates, when some of the key-guests didn’t show up, although they had repeatedly confirmed their participation. In the following debates, the organizers will try to find the optimal solution to this dilemma.

The key moments of the debate were summed up in three articles published by the Agency (check the English version of www.info-prim.md ) on 07.06.12, „Opposition should be institutionalized in Moldova, debates” - http://info-prim.md/?a=10&nD=2012/06/07&ay=46958 , on 08.06.12 „Extra-parliamentary parties in Moldova are useful, expert ” - http://info-prim.md/?a=10&nD=2012/06/08&ay=46961, on 11.06.12 - „We do not have a common national ideal, expert” - http://www.info-prim.md/?a=10&x=&ay=44604, on 15.06.12 „Oscillation between EU and Eurasian Union is mortal for Moldova, opinion” - http://info-prim.md/?a=10&nD=2012/06/15&ay=47122 and on 18.06.12 - „EU integration is 'just promotion opportunity for Filat and Leanca'” - http://info-prim.md/?a=10&nD=2012/06/18&ay=47170

An encouraging aspect is that after 1.5 hours of debates, all the participants stayed to continue the discussion during the “peace-making” coffee break.

Valeriu Vasilică, director of Info-Prim Neo
June 18, 2012