 |
|
| Veaceslav Craciun | |
Gagauz-Yeri will not comply
The adoption of the law that “bans Russian propaganda” caused no visible reactions in Moldovan society. Many political leaders made ordinary comments in support of such a step or disapproved of it. But in two weeks there were staged neither street pickets, nor demonstrations or other events in connection with the “anti-Russia law”. The statement of the administration of Autonomous Territorial Unit (ATU) Gagauzia, which was disseminated in newscasts by all the Moldovan media outlets, was the only reaction.
Governor (Bashkan) Irina Vlah was the first to react to the Moldovan Parliament’s decision. On December 7, the Governor’s press service published a statement where Vlah describes the Moldovan authorities’ decision as a violation of the Moldovan citizens’ right to have access to information. In fact, the Bashkan of ATU Gagauzia is concerned most of all about the state of the Russian language and the authority of Russia in Moldova.
“The Governor noted that on the pretext of the inexistent “information threat”, a struggle against the Russian language and the great authority of the Russian Federation is actually staged,” says the statement that was published on the official website of Gagauz-Yeri. The same document says that in accordance with the regional legislation, the Russian mass media will be maintained on the cable networks of ATU Gagauzia in full amount.
After Vlah, chairman of the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia (PAG) Vladimir Kyssa also reacted. On the website of the Assembly, there was posted a statement that was almost identical to that of the Bashkan, but also contained a supplement saying that “the aspiration to ensure the information security should not run counter to the European norms on the freedom of speech and expression.” Kyssa didn’t promise to make sure that the Russian TV channels are fully retransmitted, but, in the name of the PAG, called on Parliament to review the adopted decision, given the interests of the inhabitants of Gagauz-Yeri.
Things were further stirred up by ex-deputy of the PAG, currently adviser on legal matters to the Bashkan Ivan Burgudji who, together with several activists of ATU Gagauzia, gave a news conference in Comrat on this occasion.
“Gagauz-Yeri can take part in the country’s external policy when it is about subjects that concern the autonomous unit. In the process of adopting this law, Parliament should have obtained the consent of the People’s Assembly of Gagauz-Yeri. As the consent wasn’t requested, Gagauz-Yeri will not comply with this law,” Burgudji told journalists in Gagauzia.
Time will show the real consequences of the non-compliance with the provisions of a republican law announced by the Bashan and her adviser. Comrat has at least one formal and legal possibility of taking this step. In Moldova, the TV channels work based on a license issued by the Broadcasting Coordination Council (BCC), but in Gagauz-Yeri many broadcasters operate based on licenses issued earlier by the Executive Committee, more exactly the Main Building and Infrastructure Division, which, during several years, had been also responsible for telecommunications development.
The BCC considers such a situation is unacceptable, but cannot change it by legal ways.
Will law limit “Russian propaganda”?
In Gagauz society, including following the example of the region’s authorities, the decision taken by the Moldovan Parliament was perceived as an anti-Russia display. But there are particular factors that show another facet of the “anti-Russia” decision.
The law that disturbed Gagauz-Yeri so much consists of amendments and supplements to the Broadcasting Code of the Republic of Moldova. In particular, these define the notion of “information security”, which is “a complex set of measures aimed at ensuring the protection of private individuals, society and the state from possible misinformation and/or manipulating informing attempts from abroad and at preventing media provocations targeting the Republic of Moldova”.
Besides, one of the articles of the Code was supplemented with a new chapter “in a move to ensure the information security of the state and enable broadcasters to transmit radio and TV news, military and political programs and talk shows produced in European Union member states, the U.S. and Canada and in other states that ratified the European Convention on Transfrontier Television”.
The dispute appeared namely because of this chapter that narrows the list of states whose media contents can be retransmitted. It contains no word about Russia or the Russian language, but, as Russia didn’t sign the aforementioned Convention, the law was perceived as anti-Russia.
For the sake of correctness, some of the MPs admit that the initiative is aimed against the information policy of Russia and do not consider it necessary to eliminate the relevant fears of the opponents. But maybe the given position is dictated by the necessity of consolidating a particular image requested by the voters.
Among others, the Russian authorities have never pleaded against the Convention. On the contrary, the Russian Federation is in the process of subscribing to the Convention as this was signed by the Government, but hasn’t been ratified by the State Duma.
The Convention aims to integrate the information space of the member states and sets down common standards as regards the production of information content, principles of broadcasting advertisements, sponsorships, etc. Russian functionaries and specialists explained that the Convention hasn’t been ratified owing to the excessively bureaucratized decision-making process, the very large number of committees and commissions through which international documents go. So, the variant that Russia will become in the future a fully-fledged member of the Convention is not at all fantastic, especially because such a decision will remove the obstacles faced by the favorites of Moscow in the immediate vicinity (in Moldova - Igor Dodon and Irina Vlah), who will benefit from the specific services of the Russian TV channels with no limits.
Concern or PR?
In Gagauz-Yeri, there is a funny practice. When decisions are taken at republican level, which can be interpreted as anti-Russia, the politicians of Gagauzia start to condemn, to oppose a decision and to formulate requests to the Moldovan authorities. Those who keep silent are considered traitors or accomplices of the regime. But when the same decisions are examined without media coverage and the participation of civil society, local politicians have a much more reserved behavior. This was evident especially at the initial stages of adoption of the “anti-Russia” amendments to the Broadcasting Code.
The legislative initiative was registered in Parliament in June 2017 and the Gagauz authorities made no statement then. Moreover, when the Cabinet approved the bill in a month, Irina Vlah, who took part in the meeting, had no objection then.
Thus, the way in which the Democratic MPs from Gagauz-Yeri voted gives the impression that their negative attitude to the bill is related to the politicians’ preoccupation with their image. For example, only Demian Caraseni, from among the Gagauz representatives in the Democratic parliamentary group, supported the amendments to the Broadcasting Code, while Nicolai Dudoglo and Cornel Dudnic refrained. It is expected that in the future legislative elections namely Dudoglo and Dudnic will run in the single-member constituencies of Gagauzia.
It should be noted that the adoption of the law in Parliament coincided with the visit paid by the Democratic leader Vlad Plahotniuc to the United States. The “anti-Russia” law was a suitable argument to be used by the Moldovan authorities for obtaining political and financial support.
Inappropriate methods
If we leave aside the interpretation of the reasons that led to the appearance of the legislative proposal and the reactions to its adoption, questions also appear as to its practical purpose. With the spreading of the Internet, the ban on the retransmission of TV programs and even channels becomes an anachronism. Anyone can find the preferred program on youtube or see the live broadcast on the channel’s website. The number of viewings of such programs often rises to millions and becomes comparable with the audience of TV channels. The political information is broadcast through social networking sites and other ways and there are thousands of methods to promote a particular content. It is useless taking outdated methods to combat this.
In general, if we regard propaganda as a threat to information security, the ban, as historical experience shows, is one of the worst solutions. It is something else when we speak about cyber-security, infrastructure facilities or personal databases. In these cases, the bans or obstacles are suitable instruments. If the information security is related to the modeling of the ideology of people, the threat can be removed by the own state policy, by improving living standards, creating high-quality media products or training people in the spirit of critical thinking. But is the Moldovan administration willing to do his and can it actually put such things into practice?
Veaceslav Craciun, Comrat
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.