 |
|
| Veaceslav Craciun | |
Adopting a package of laws on the status of ATU Gagauzia was one of the conditions formulated by the Party of Socialists (PSRM) for constituting a parliamentary majority with the Bloc ACUM. Even if the negotiations failed later, the inclusion of regional themes in the discussions of such a level is symbolical. It already depends on the consistency of the Socialists, the Gagauz administration’s position and the right’s wish to deal with the distrust of the Gagauz voters so that the “Gagauz issue” remains a subject of the consultations on the future coalition and a part of the process of working out government policies.
Gagauz bills
The statement concerning the conditions in which the Socialists are ready to have talks was made public after a meeting of the PSRM’s National Council. The point about Gagauzia formed part of the package of legislative proposals that was set by the Socialists as a priority. This way they underlined their party’s commitment to insist on the implementation of this package in any eventual consultations.
The “Gagauz package of laws” includes three legislative proposals formulated in 2016 as part of the working group of members of Moldova’s Parliament and deputies of the People’s Assembly of Gagauz-Yeri (APG-Y). In 2017, two of them were examined in parliamentary session and were even adopted after being given the first and second readings. A series of national laws were amended and supplemented, such as the law on the local public administration, the law on administrative decentralization and the law on the territorial-administrative organization of the Republic of Moldova. The changes were made with the aim of separating, by legislative ways, the administrative bodies of Gagauz-Yeri, namely the APG-Y, the Bashkan and the Executive Committee, so that they formed a separate level of the public administration. Under the current norms, these bodies form part of the second level, together with the public authorities from districts and the municipalities of Balti and Chisinau. Besides, the amendments were to reflect Gagauzia’s powers to solve problems related to its own administrative organization in the national legislation.
But the parliamentary majority voted for the edited version of the laws that was proposed by the legal commission. The modification of the text of the bills wasn’t accepted by Comrat as this considered the bills became thus senseless. Consequently, at the request of the ATU’s administration, President Dodon rejected the proposals.
The third proposal amends the law on the special legal status of Gagauz-Yeri”. The Gagauz deputies proposed inserting a clause saying that Moldova’s Parliament does not have the right to unilaterally modify this law, without the consent of the People’s Assembly. The given law generated the most of objections on the part of the Moldovan MPs and wasn’t passed.
Gagauzia for Socialists or Socialists for Gagauzia?
The Socialists’ decision to make this desideratum a component part of their position in the negotiations is justified. The question is who namely spoke about the interest of Gagauzia, raising it to a national level.
The Socialists enjoyed the greatest nationals support among Gagauz voters in the recent elections. If these didn’t at least try to solve problems faced by the region, this would affect the party’s popularity in the ATU. At the same time, the decision about the number of constituencies established on the ATU’s territory made the Socialists be more hesitant in making promises. Then, when the electoral reform was being made, President Igor Dodon promised he would help the region’s authorities to obtain first five and then three constituencies. However, only two constituencies were ultimately formed in Gagauzia.
It can be assumed that the attention devoted by the Socialists to the Gagauz problems is also determined by the position of Bashkan (Governor) Irina Vlah. The Bashkan’s team played a significant role that was probably decisive in the electoral success of the Socialists in the region. That’s why it would be logical to insist on benefits for the region from the positions of the Bashkan and to expect that the PSRM would fulfil a key duty of the political players, which is to formulate and promote the interests of distinct social groups.
During the elections, Gagauz-Yeri was an electoral source for the Socialists. After February 24, the Socialists became a political instrument for Gagauzia. Probably namely this principle starts to manifest itself in the actions of the region’s admiration. At least there are reasons and possibilities for doing so.
A chance for ACUM
The “Gagauz bills”, except for one of them that amends the law on the special legal status of Gagauz-Yeri”, do not envision the essential modification of the legislation. In fact, they only strengthen powers that are already stipulated in the law on Gagauzia. Moreover, this is not a key subject on the list of problems that Comrat expects the central authorities will solve.
But presenting the whole list of demands would be an unproductive and suspicious step. By moving the whole set of issues to the political and speculative sphere, Comrat would lose the possibility of having its requests examined thoroughly. For its part, the Party of Socialists, if it excessively focuses on the Gagauz issue, would block the consultations on the formation of a ruling alliance.
For these reasons, the decision to only invoke the “Gagauz bills” is reasonable and even offers the right from the Bloc ACUM the possibility of gaining Gagauz people’s confidence.
The PSRM’s statement says the bills of the working group that consisted of members of Moldova’s Parliament and deputies of the APG-Y were designed with the assistance of European institutions and the OSCE. The group was financially sported by the Embassy of Sweden in Moldova. As part of their activity, the MPs visited autonomous units in EU member states, particularly South Tyrol, Wales and the Aland Islands. In their reports after the trips, the MPs said the studying of the European experience can be useful in eliminating the contradictions existing with the Gagauz Autonomous Unit.
In other words, there are no evident obstacles for the parties of Maia Sandu and Andrei Năstase to bring “Gagauz bills” into their sphere of preoccupation and to adopt a balanced position in this regard, acceptable to the leaders of Gagauzia. This would contribute to partially eliminating the barrier between the inhabitants of the Territorial Autonomous Unit and the current representatives of the right and could become the start of their political history in Gagauzia.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.