The Constitutional Court’s judgment on the new suspension of the President from office unblocked a political conflict between the presidential administration controlled by the informal leader of the Socialists Igor Dodon and the Government controlled by the Democrats led by oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc. This way, the Court managed to assert itself again as an active player in the political sphere, political pundit Dionis Cenusa says in an analysis article for IPN.
Though the precedent of the suspension of the President from office is dangerous for the future governments, this suits both the Democrats and the Socialists. Thus, the first found a constitutional method of overcoming a procedural obstacle that depended on President Dodon. The latter managed again to victimize themselves, re-launching the electoral messages used in 2016 to mobilize the population against the government described as “Euro-unionist” in an electoral year.
Earlier, the Court’s decision concerning the holding of the office of President on an interim basis of 2010 enabled to stop the early presidential elections caused in July 2009 and October 2010 by the impossibility of choosing the Head of State in Parliament. Furthermore, the Court allowed amending the procedure for electing the President, preventing thus new elections and facilitating the election of Nicolae Timofti as President in 2012.
The Court’s judgment of March 2016 concerning the restoring of the direct election of the President was another intervention with a major impact.
Though the possibility of provoking early elections following the impossibility of electing the President in Parliament was excluded definitively, the Court’s decision reduced the political pressure on the part of the non-systemic opposition on the Democratic Party that, since 2016, has extended its political monopoly on the institutions.
The politologist considers the interaction with the Constitutional Court enabled the ruling parties to offset the own lack of legitimacy and decline in popular support. The forces that do not take part in governance looked yet in the Court for an institution that would balance the Democrats’ control over the state institutions, but this seldom decided in their favor.
The constructive role played by the Constitution perpetuated the political status-quo that ultimately undermined the democratic basis of the state.
It’s true that the High Court fluidized the political process. But the specification of new rules of the game by the case law of the Court opened ‘Pandora’s box’ and generated an excess of political unpredictability for the durability of the subsequent governments, concluded the expert.
