IPN analysis: The publication of the report by the international company Kroll concerning the theft of one billion dollars from the financial-banking system of Moldova only now became a certainty. But the delay is certainly dangerous, even if not fatal. Where does the certainty come from? Why this delay? What the fatality for?
---
So far the publication of the Kroll Report was asked for and promised at the highest levels possible in Moldova. It was asked by the political opposition, civil society organizations, experts and others and was promised by high-ranking officials of Parliament, the Government, the National Bank, etc.
Preliminary and final decisions
But the certainty that it will be so appeared only after such a decision was adopted by the Council of the ruling alliance – the Alliance for European Moldova (AEM). The news was made public by the leader of the PLDM Vlad Filat last Friday, in an interview for Moldpres Agency, and was confirmed by the Democratic MP Sergiu Sirbu for IPN the same day.
For their part, these make reference to a decision that was taken in the meeting of the AEM’s Council one day earlier. The title of the Moldpres interview sounds like a verdict: “Vlad Filat: Kroll report must be made public!”.
The certainty that the report will be made public does not come from the exclamation mark placed at the end of the title, but from the special status of the AEM Council and its role in the country’s real political life, even if these are stipulated in none of the legal acts, including Moldova’s Constitution. The AEM Council, created based on the agreement signed by the political parties that assumed governance and formed a minority government, includes several of the most influential members of the PLDM and PDM, with the perception shaped over the last few years suggesting that namely these persons take the most important and definitive decisions in this country, allegedly by consensus. Not Parliament, Government or the ministries, but namely this Council. If we take into account the party discipline, especially the mechanisms for funding and running parties in Moldova, we see that the decisive vote belongs to an even smaller circle, of about two-three people. The public opinion identified them long ago: Vlad Filat and Vlad Plahotniuc, and possibly Marian Lupu.
Consequences of ‘anomaly’
The fact that these people do not have very important state posts and, respectively, important obligations, is rather an anomaly than political normality, because the posts of President, Prime Minister and Head of Parliament are held by other politicians than the aforementioned one. In the countries with democratic traditions, the informal leaders (on party line) and the formal ones (on state line) are the same persons. The taking of an incorrect decision or the not taking of a decision is punished with dismissal or even harsher. Things in our country are distorted or inverted abnormally and this is possibly why the decisions concerning such documents as the Kroll report come with chronic, often dangerous or even fatal delays, and may not be made public at all.
We will not deliberately approach the rumors saying that one of those officials who take decisions, if not all of them, is involved in the stealing of the billion dollars and are thus interested in keeping the Kroll secret. First of all because there is no legal evidence concerning the involvement of these officials and because the given ‘business’ is a consequence of the Moldovan anomaly rather than of this situation. Respectively, the anomaly should be first normalized. It is sufficient to remember the relatively recent revelations of ex-Premier Iurie Leanca, who said that he was a simple Prime Minister, when he was asked by journalists how the decisions concerning the leasing out of the Chisinau Airport and the concession of Banca de Economii and other actions were possible given that these are mistaken, blamable or even illegal, as the public opinion described them. As it is well known, U.S. President Richard Nixon could be penalized in the case of the Watergate scandal namely because he held the post of head of state and, holding it, gave orders and took illegal decisions. If he had been ‘in the shadow’, he definitely wouldn’t have been penalized. However, this could have happened if political anomalies similar to those witnessed by Moldova had taken place in the U.S. in the 1970s. It would be hard to invent a more favorable situation for somebody who wants to benefit from everything, but does not want to answer for something.
Causes of ‘anomaly’
This ‘anomaly’ has its roots in the political crisis of the 2013, when Vlad Filat, Marian Lupu and Vlad Plahotniuc reciprocally staged their dismissals from the high-ranking posts held then, and in the Constitutional Court’s decision of the same period, according to which such dismissals, based on political criteria, prevent those who are dismissed this way from holding high-ranking public posts. Since then, we witnessed a number of political farces like false negotiations and looking for candidates for the most important state posts, even if everyone knows who are those who really pull the strings and manages the affairs in the state, remaining yet ‘in the shadow’ and didn’t bearing direct responsibility for these affairs. At the same time, the ‘anomaly’ diminishes the importance and responsibility of the state institutions, including of Parliament and the Government, even if it only explains and does not justify the situation in which these are. This explanation is applicable also to the disappearance of the one billion dollars from the Moldovan banks, when the central authorities reacted by delays and hesitancy rather than by firm and convincing actions. The swiftness and coherence of authorities’ further acts will represent a convincing argument in favor or against the accusations of involvement in that theft.
The situation should and already can be changed. The media referred recently to the statements made by the president of the Constitutional Court Alexandru Tanase, who said that those who were dismissed in 2013 will be able to hold high-ranking public posts in the future. He referred directly or indirectly to the leader of the PLDM Vlad Filat. An additional proof is the Constitutional Court’s decision to validate the seats of all the MPs elected on November 30, 2014, including of all the members of the Government that was dismissed by Parliament by a censure motion in 2013. Probably only one step remained for normalizing the situation and clarifying things because the fate of a political party or of a politician can be decided only in elections or based on a non-political definitive court decision.
Litmus test for European option
The results of the June 14 local general elections will confirm or refute the general perception of the not very good performance of the pro-European parties and of the parties that represent it in elucidating the financial crisis, including by tardy and unconvincing actions and decisions amid speculations about their involvement in this case. It won’t be an exaggeration to say that the government’s capacity to swiftly, dignifiedly and convincingly overcome this situation will depend not only on the electoral score of its component parts, but also on the country’s capacity to continue the European development course. The last Opinion Barometer poll clearly shows that the spotted image of the pro-European government, especially due to the theft of the one billion dollars and not only, negatively influences society’s pro-European option. This is a very alarming signal, especially when the pro-Eastern parties stage an offensive and the European bodies become increasingly concerned given that they want to have reliable partners with sufficient political support for continuing the European course in Moldova. Otherwise, the situation can become fatal for this course in which so much was invested.
‘Political’ and ‘nonpolitical’ politicians
The same poll ascertains the continuous diminution of the people’s confidence in the political parties. It is another alarming signal for the political class because the democratic system of government hasn’t yet invented a mechanism to avoid parties and their involvement in governance. The removal of parties from this process, including because of one’s own blame, generates dangers of dictatorship and tyranny. As they say: democracy is not the best thing, but mankind hasn’t yet discovered something better. What the parties did in the countries with democratic traditions in time was to increase the credibility of political entities and political leaders in society. The Moldovan parties cannot avoid this way, including by internal cleanup. Now that the local elections are coming, the Moldovan parties make effort to improve their image, including by attracting personalities from outside the own parties or by presenting them as apolitical and no-party members. At least such impression appears if we analyze the candidates fielded or expected to be fielded by the parties. Thus, the Party of Socialists (PSRM) presents Zinaida Grechenyi as a member of no party, while the candidate pledges to build a team of professionals who are not involved in politics. The “Our” Party put forward a party member, but Ilian Casu is very new in politics and other qualities of his than the political ones will be thus taken into account in his case. The Party of Communists (PCRM) fielded businessman Vasili Chirtoca, who is not a party member, probably for the same reasons. The Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM) will follow the same way if it proposes the president of the Audit Office, ex-mayor of Chisinau Serafim Urechean, who hasn’t been associated with politics for a period. Only the deputy chairman of the Liberal Party (PL) Dorin Chirtoaca, current mayor of Chisinau, remains a candidate fielded based on political criteria.
Interesting duel: Chirtoaca-Urechean
We will yet see if the going against the current will bring benefits to Dorin Chirtoaca in the aforementioned party distrust conditions. In fact, the political or rather the geopolitical factor can have a say if the candidates of the PL and PSRM or, possibly, those of the PL and PCRM, as earlier, compete in the second round of voting. It will be the pro-European option and the pro-Russian option that will be ultimately competing against each other and it can be predicted how most of the residents of Chisinau will vote. If Serafim Urechean enters the race, the equation can become more difficult, at least for the current mayor. The second round in the Urechean-Chiroaca format is rather probable and the PL could reconsider the PLDM’s and PDM’s proposal to support Chirtoaca in the race for the mayoralty of Chisinau, made earlier this year. However, at the beginning of this year the PL gave up taking part in governance namely because it wanted to regain the mayoralty of Chisinau. In a possible final duel, the political factor could slightly incline the balance towards Chirtoaca, who could attract a part of the votes of the pro-European supporters, who are dissatisfied with the performance of the ruling parties, as the PL hoped, if this government is not able to clarify the stealing of the one billion dollars. The geopolitical factor could inline the balance more towards Urechean because he is also known as a supporter of the pro-European course, but he would also attract votes from those who would vote for parties of the left in the first round. Urechean’s image of manager could be better than that of Chirtoaca because the current mayor will have to answer for every real or invented mistake made in the recent past, while the former mayor will enjoy the advantage produced by nice and selective memories of his mayoralty. Furthermore, those several years in office as president of the Audit Office offered Serafim Urechean the possibility of collecting data about the real state of affairs in the municipality of Chisinau, including about those that his opponent would like to remain unrevealed.
Valeriu Vasilica, IPN