The current Parliament is of a transition period and nothing shows the future legislative would be different in nature. The current legislature, by its work, didn’t create conditions for the transition period to be brought to an end in the Republic of Moldova, political analyst Anatol Țăranu said in the public debate “Place of Parliament of 20th legislature in life of society and in history of Moldovan parliamentarianism” that was the 98th installment of the series of debates “Developing political culture through public debates”, staged by IPN News Agency and Radio Moldova.
According to the analyst, stabilization at governmental level and at the level of the promoted economic and social policies was witnessed during the mandate of the current Parliament even if the development factor is ambiguous as one should speak about development in very attentive and moderate terms. “It’s true that Parliament, by its legislative activity, was able to make a series of legal acts that guarantee an economic growth of 3-5% a year in the Republic of Moldova. But this economic growth does not correlate with the vital necessitates of the state, society in general, because such a growth reveals economic stagnation. The Republic of Moldova, to reach the European average, needs much faster economic development paces,” said Anatol Țăranu, noting the legislature guaranteed the survival of the informal economic factor rather than the economic development of the country.
“It should be noted that at social level, the pensions and salaries were raised by the Parliament’s contribution too. We will yet see if these raises are supported by economic policies that should guarantee the given level of inflation and economic stability in the future,” stated the analyst. “It is hard to speak about the social aspect, including from the angle of legislative work, when something like this occurs before the elections. Usually, all the Parliaments are dominated by particular political forces that are very generous when it goes to raises in salaries and pensions before the elections. The question is if the living standards that are achieved by these raises will be maintained for a long period after the elections.”
Anatol Țăranu said the attempt to imprint an element of internal cohesion on society is a very serious feature related to the legislature and to the programs and policies of the parties that dominate Parliament. Moldovan society is profoundly divided and there is no idea or concept that would help overcome this division. Durable policies are practically impossible in a society that is so seriously split. “Moldovan society needs something else. I also refer to identity problems on which the stability of any society is based,” he stated.
According to the analyst, from this viewpoint the current Parliament missed a series of moments. “The European orientation could have been enshrined in the Constitution one way or another, even formally, and would have ensured a particular logic in the future even if the formal stipulation does not guarantee internal cohesion. From this stance, Parliament had very serious drawbacks in terms of the internal cohesion of Moldova society,” he noted.
Anatol Țăranu noted the parliamentary republic as a system of government does no derive from the historical-cultural state of Moldovan society, which is profoundly paternalist. For such a society, for such a type of culture, a presidential republic where there is a “father” is more suitable as the people better understand such a system of government. “I think these serious deviations witnessed in the functioning of Parliament derive from here. Regrettably, the Parliament of the 20th legislature confirmed this fact. The act of parliamentary debates is extremely formal. In fact, we do not have a proper parliamentary debate in the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova. The legislative body, in a mechanical way, stamps the laws agreed not as a result of profound parliamentary debates by applying expertise, but rather as a result of agreements reached behind the curtain earlier,” he stated, noting this considerably affects the democratic essence of the lawmaking process.
The debate “Place of Parliament of 20th legislature in life of society and in history of Moldovan parliamentarianism” forms part of the series of debates held by IPN News Agency and Radio Moldova as part of the project “Developing political culture through public debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
