On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the declaration of Moldova’s Independence, IPN News Agency decided to depict the portrait of the current Republic of Moldova. For the purpose, it provoked a number of people, including state officials, politicians, businessmen, civil rights activists and persons without posts and titles, but who have what to say. The generic picture is called “Thoughts about and for Moldova”.
---
The executive director of the Association of Independent Press Petru Macovei: If we have leaders who will really fight corruption and for the integrity of functionaries, we will have chances to develop. Otherwise, in 10 years Moldova could no longer exist.
– This year we celebrate 25 years of the declaration of Moldova’s Independence. How does the country look like after 25 years?
– It definitely looks differently compared with 25 years ago. Things changed a lot in all the areas. We wanted to advance a lot, but, given that our country enjoys a lot of good things, but is not lucky to have rulers who think more about the welfare of the people of this country rather than about the personal interests, we didn’t manage to become a developed state during 25 years of Independence. Apparently, it is a very short historical period. In reality, there are countries that in the period managed to solve very big problems and managed to develop the country and modernize it a lot. This shows that we had a period of failed hopes and unaccomplished dreams. I believe that the politicians who ruled since 1992 until now are those to blame for the current state of affairs and we witnessed governments representing all the political segments in the period, of the right, center or of the left. Probably none of these ideological currents can lead the country to normality.
– Which are the biggest failures of the government and society during these years?
– The main failure is that Moldova didn’t manage to get rid of the influence of Russia as the Baltic States did. If we had gone alongside them in 1991-1992 and had rulers who think about the welfare of this country, not about their interests, who would have not yielded to the influence of different world geopolitical centers, I’m sure that the Republic of Moldova could have been now a member of the EU and a country with economic and financial stability, where the people have a higher degree of welfare than now, and which is not the target of geopolitical storms. Moldova, during the 25 years of independence, has been in such a situation. From one influence to another, from the Transnistrian war and the situation in the south of the republic to the social dissatisfaction of 2000 that led to a full change in the country’s development course and then to an apparent return to the European development course in 2009. But the last six years have been missed.
– If we speak about accomplishments, which would have been the most important ones?
– First of all, the accomplishments are related to the fact that many citizens of our country had the possibility of developing as personalities, many of them abroad. They managed to realize their potential in the period and this was due to the opening of access to the foreign labor market after 1992 and the possibility of studying. The generations of the last 25 years had been happier because they had this possibility that we didn’t have.
At economic level, our country regretfully didn’t manage to strengthen itself as a viable market economy because there were different development courses, of the right and of the left. No conditions were created for the healthy development of the small business. Investments in Moldova have been made, but the legal framework is not very stimulating for big foreign investment. Yes, many international companies came to Moldova, but many gave up coming because the existent conditions, especially corruption, discourage making big investment and this is a big failure. You see, you asked me about accomplishments, but I returned again to failures because there are good and bad things too. If we put things on a scale, regretfully, we will ascertain that more bad things happened during 25 years and the balance inclines to failures more than to accomplishments.
– How did the mass media evolve?
– Surely, a lot of big, important and necessary changes occurred after 1992. But here we also had good and bad periods. The fact that the Republic of Moldova at the current stage is a country, according to the international ratings, with partially free media, shows that particular processes of democratic development occurred in the media sector. The journalists were and are mainly free. The freedom of the media is guaranteed by the Constitution and a multitude of legal acts and governmental decisions. In parentheses, we must say that not all these laws function, but things have improved after 1992. We no longer have state monopoly. We must again ascertain a positive thing and a negative one – we do not have state monopoly, but have a process of private monopolization and the ‘oligarchizatiuon’ of the mass media. This noxiously affects the freedom of expression and the pluralism of opinion.
Surely, the situation of 2016, versus the situation of 1992, is better, but it is not enough to say that 25 years were consumed for the country’s democratic development. Especially, the involutions on the media segment during the last 3-4 years show that the Republic of Moldova slowly, but safely, returns to a government regime that discourages the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media. These things are regrettable because the Republic of Moldova had a chance that our colleagues from other post-Soviet countries such as the Georgian sand Ukrainians didn’t have and these envy the many chances that Moldova had after 2009 as it is the only country that obtained a liberalized visa regime within the Eastern Partnership and the first country that signed the Association Agreement and to which big prospects were opened up. But the EU opens the doors as in that proverb: they teach you to fish, but does not give you the fish. We must have rulers able to direct things to the correct path. We, regretfully, in the period had rulers who knew only now to exploit these advantages through media and for personal, private and business interests, not for the interests of the people.
– Important changes to the legislation that regulates the mass media were made during the last few years. Why is yet the monopolization a problem in this sector?
– It’s very simple. We return to our big and probably only problem – our political class with a crypto-Soviet mentality. These are people who could not detach themselves from this regime, even if some of them are very young, educated in the West, but there are the Soviet-type bureaucratic successors who do not understand that the decisions in a democracy are taken in the people’s interests, not in the personal ones.
Why does the situation in the media sector remain the same? Namely because in these 25 years, with small periods when they inspired us with hope, but during which we recovered quickly and realized that we were again cheated, with small periods of reinvigoration, the politicians who ruled this country didn’t want to yield control over the media. They wanted, and now possibly want more, to control the journalists so as to control people’s minds through these.
It is a strategy that in the short term, and especially in the medium and long term, is noxious for the democratic development of the country. It happened similarly during the Communist government, when everyone and everything were controlled and there was a media trust controlled by the Party of Communists, with small islands of press freedom. It happens so now too, when the Democratic Party owns the biggest media company and tries to subdue also other institutions or to make those with another viewpoint keep silent.
– How much did consumers’ mentality change during these years?
– A lot. The Moldovan people have access to foreign media outlets whose products are of a different quality. At the same time, we remained connected to the Russia media market that is more controlled than in Moldova by the state bodies with the corresponding political and geopolitical implications. This means that a part of the Moldovan citizens, especially people who are no longer young and who have particular habits, remain hostage to thoughts promoted mainly by the Russian media and this shows that in general, the changes in this field are not very visible.
The people are ‘zombied’ by the Russian stations, especially TV channels. This does not yet mean that they must be banned. We must only offer our people the chance of having access to journalistic products of a high quality, no matter where they are made, in Moldova, in Europe or in Russia. For the people to have this dexterity and capacity to choose between a high quality product and a product of a bad quality, they should be offered these models. In our country, regretfully, we have models of bad journalism offered from abroad, especially the Russian Federation, and we have models of very bad journalistic quality provided by media trusts from our country. And it is then important, but I don’t know how achievable, given that our politicians want to maintain control, to develop public policies that would help strengthen the independence of the media in our country, which yet remained.
– The press needs sources of financing. In our country, serious problems are faced in this regard. What should the mass media do to be independent financially?
– The editorial independence is definitely determined by the financial independence. It happens everywhere in the world. If we carry out an analysis on the small market of Moldova, with a publicity volume that does not reach at least €20 million, we ascertain that there are a multitude of media outlets. A natural question appears – how does a market that is insufficient financially from the viewpoint of advertising and existent investments develop? Why do these institutions exist? The answer is at the surface. Because they are used by different political currents, politicians and businessmen who want to enter politics or to consolidate their businesses.
On this market, which is full of politically biased institutions, with the advertising market being also politically controlled, it is very hard for a media outset to survive and develop without the financial support coming as grants. Examples of viable mass media businesses, which would not have political, administrative or other kinds of implications can be counted on the fingers of one hand. All the rest are institutions that survive by accessing foreign funds, from the development partners of the Republic of Moldova, foreign embassies that yet support the independence of the press and we should be grateful to them for this. Without their support, I doubt that we could have spoken about at least a small freedom of the media in Moldova, which would present alternative opinions.
– Looking back at these 25 years, how independent is ultimately the Republic of Moldova?
– I don’t think that a country like the Republic of Moldova, which is not a super power at local level, not speaking about the international level, can be absolutely independent. However, on the 25th anniversary of the Independence, we should have been able to speak about lesser dependence on the Russian energy market through which political blackmail is possible and this is evident and cannot be denied. The country’s economy continues to be oriented a lot to the Eastern market, though we must admit that during the last few years particularly, with the rapprochement with the EU, things started to change and some changes continue. I hope this evolution will continue and we will not stagnate as we did during the last two years in all the areas.
I consider that if things in the Republic of Moldova had developed as in the Baltic States, the country would have developed in a different way. The rulers in these countries took decisions that weren’t to everyone’s taste. These were also like shock therapy. But in a period, the economy and society in general started to move in a good direction and thus the Baltic States are where they are, while the Republic of Moldova still oscillates between the West and the East. This is a proof of political inconsistency and this was very swiftly transmitted to the people because the people cannot wait endlessly.
– You say that the country during these years oscillated between the West and the East. How do you see it in 10-15 years?
– I hope that in 10 years the Republic of Moldova will manage to advance or to choose leaders that have no connection with the current generation of rulers that showed their incapacity. If they are not capable, they should leave and a new generation should come, with people who will think about the public interest and the development of this country during a longer period than their terms. I hope that this change of the generation of politicians will happen as the public perceptions will also change together with this. We convinced ourselves during these 25 years that the absolute majority of Moldovans are not unable to understand. They have the ability to understand and a lot of patience, but, if the politicians continue to offer non-examples of correctitude in governance, things in Moldova do not have chances to change. If we understand and learn, these will appear. If we have leaders who will really fight corruption and for the integrity of functionaries, we will have chances to develop. Otherwise, in 10 years the Republic of Moldova could no longer exist.
---
Petru Macovei is the executive director of the Association of Independent Press. He is the secretary of the Press Council, which is a self-regulatory mass media mechanism. In the past, he was the editor-in-chief of the independent weekly “Local Hour” and radio editor at the state-run company “Teleradio-Moldova”.
Anastasia Rusu, IPN
The articles of the series “Thoughts about and for Moldova” started to be published on July 18. Among the protagonists are: Dumitru Alaiba, Iurie Ciocan, Ana-Maria Ţulea, Ion Manole,Olga Gagauz, Stella Ciobanu, Iurie Leancă, Victor Parlicov, Doru Curoşu, Igor Meriacre, Valeria Şeican, Ciprian Raeţchi, Andrei Năstase, Ghenadie Gâlcă, Arcadie Barbăroşie,Valeriu Matei, Eugen Doga, Dumitru Postovan, Petru Macovei, Tatiana Negruş, Maia Sandu, Viorel Soltan, Valentin Guţan, Gheorghe Erizanu, Mariana Onceanu-Hadârcă, Viorel Cibotaru, Victor Micu, Sergiu Prodan, Igor Dodon, Aureliu Batrînac, Alexandru Pleşca, Dionis Cenuşa, Kalman Mizsei, Petru Bodarev, Marian Lupu, IUlia Iabanji, Pavel Filip, Andrian Candu.
