This autumn’s referendum in which the citizens of the Republic of Moldova are to pronounce on the country’s accession to the European Union will certainly be one of the main topics on the political agenda for the whole year 2024. Judging by the way things have developed since December 24, 2023, when the idea of the referendum was first enunciated, this electoral exercise could most likely take place simultaneously with the presidential election that is to be held in autumn. What strategic and tactical goals are pursued by this political action initiated by representatives of the current government and also what reaction the Moldovan political class and society can have were among the subjects discussed by the experts invited to IPN’s public debate “Consensus and rivalry in the pro-EU referendum”.
The permanent expert of IPN’s project Igor Boțan said that a referendum is a method for the citizens to directly express their will by voting on the most significant issues of national, regional or local interest. “The referendum is the most important institution of direct democracy. This is one of the main ways of public participation in taking decisions that are important for the state and for each citizen apart,” explained the expert.
According to him, elections represent the identification, by a majority of votes, of persons in the representative public offices of the people – Parliament or state – the President’s Office. “The affinities between voting in elections and voting in referendums lie in the fact that the vote is usually cast in a universal, secret, direct and free ballot. We must understand that the referendum is the main instrument of direct democracy and the elections are the main instrument of representative democracy,” stated IPN project’s expert.
Igor Boțan also said that elections are one of the most frequent forms of the citizens’ participation in the sociopolitical life of the state, country, region. Elections are the most important institution for the functioning of the political system and regime, for their legitimacy.
Stanislav Giletski, deputy director of the Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE), noted that the political factor wanted to produce this element of surprise when it announced the organization of a possible referendum. This idea was announced when the tenure of the country’s President reached three years, at the end of last the year. And the effects were felt. “It is noteworthy that when this referendum was announced, the Electoral Code did not allow it to be held together with other elections, either presidential or parliamentary ones. To ensure the legal basis, Parliament in a few days had to amend the Electoral Code and introduce these amendments so that this thing is legal,” said the IPRE deputy director.
According to him, at this stage the issue of legality has been resolved. However, there are questions as to the opportunity of organizing this referendum and to how the legality of organizing the referendum was ensured. Decisional transparency wasn’t fully resected. “Obviously, the politicians like surprise elements, but when we talk about such initiatives, which are extremely important for the public life and the future of the Republic of Moldova, there should be no haste. I consider the element of participation and full co-participation of citizens, civil society was not fully respected when this initiative was announced,” stated Stanislav Giletski.
He noted that the amendments were introduced, were adopted and became law in a week and they cannot ensure greater confidence, including in the parliamentary institution. There is direct criticism, including against previous governments, when decisional transparency is not fully respected. “So, you either believe or you don’t believe in decisional transparency. This element cannot be circumstantial – today I believe in decisional transparency and I consult citizens, but when it suits me, I do not consult them. That is why I consider that namely this element was violated even if, at this stage, there are no problems related to the legality of this referendum. But I believe that this step was taken in a hurry, without genuine consultations, including with citizens, civil society and also with political players,” said Stanislav Giletski said.
Political commentator Anatol Țăranu said the aspects of the legality of organizing the referendum were respected. However, legitimacy issues can be discussed. The initiative to hold a referendum was put forward by the President of the country. It was immediately promoted by the parliamentary majority, which voted the necessary amendments to the Electoral Code. This showed once again that the President directly manages the parliamentary majority.
“Somehow, this initiative took us by surprise because it was practically not announced even as an idea that needs to be discussed beforehand. This again points to a communication gap within the current government, which has been evident since the very beginning. We will now see how society will react,” stated Anatol Țăranu.
In his opinion, when it comes to legitimacy, problems of interpretation can appear. And they are absolutely justified, namely for the reason that society was taken by surprise. Especially with regard to a referendum of such a scale and importance, in democratic societies this is not the case.
“One more thing we should mention is that not the government, but the opposition spoke about the referendum more. The initiative to call a referendum on the European or other orientation of our society belongs to the opposition. And when the government, in the person of the President, came up with such an initiative, the opposition was also taken by surprise. The latter had to adjust its position on this initiative on the fly. And we saw that the opposition did not even have enough imagination to be able to react appropriately,” said the commentator.
He noted that a dispute over the initiative to organize the referendum has already arouse in society and it will expand along the way. “Undoubtedly, this initiative opens Pandora’s box as it entails absolutely obvious risks to what is called the European integration of the Republic of Moldova,” noted Anatol Țăranu.
The public debate entitled “Consensus and rivalry in the pro-EU referendum” was the 297th installment of IPN’s project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” which is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
