Some experts consider the opposition won as a result of the March 4 judgment of the Constitutional Court, by which the election of the President by the people’s vote was restored, while others think this was actually a trap for the opposition. Contradictory statements on the issue were made in the talk show “Politics” on TV 7 channel, IPN reports.
Political analyst Vitalii Andrievschi believes the opposition only gained. “The potential candidates for the presidency on behalf of the left and of the right are known. Those who are in power do not have a candidate yet. I think it would have been more suitable for those from the Democratic Party if the head of state had been elected by Parliament,” he stated.
Political commentator Alexei Tulbure, Moldova’s ex-Ambassador to the UN and former Representative to the Council of Europe, considers the Constitutional Court’s judgment of March 4 is a trap for the opposition. “The slogans of the opposition were different such as resignation and early elections and taking of the state out of captivity. The opposition could have had a chance as regards the early elections if Parliament had been unable to elect the head of state. By the Constitutional Court’s judgment, those from the government solved the problem and will thus keep their seats for three more years,” he said.
On March 4, the Constitutional Court decided that the constitutional amendments made in 2000, which authorized Parliament to elect the head of state, are unconstitutional and Moldova’s next President will be elected by direct, universal, freely expressed and secret vote by the people.
