Debate 19, together with debate 20, stand out for their targeted, deep and multilateral approach to examining the experience that followed after the latest political crisis which seriously affected Moldova, its internal life and its European orientation externally. Another highlight of these debates was that they featured prominent politicians, who have had crucial roles in both initiating and overcoming the crisis, and namely former Prime Minister Vlad Filat and ex-Speaker Marian Lupu, the leaders of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party, respectively. For subjective and objective reasons, a debate having both these leaders together couldn't be arranged, so it was decided to hold two debates with identical agendas. The line-up of experts was also different at each of the debates, and this helped to collect a wider range of views. This explains the larger than usual number of stories produced by IPN from these two debates.
In the first debate of the pair, the speakers suggested that one lesson Moldovan society should learn from the latest political crisis is that our country is “doomed” to have a coalition government, because, among other reasons, our society is very fragmented and votes for parties with different doctrines.
Liberal Democratic leader Vlad Filat said that one of the causes of the political crisis faced by Moldova this spring was the fact that the state institutions were dysfunctional and deviated from the legal norm. Another cause was the deficient communication between the components of the ruling alliance. Vlad Filat thinks that time is needed to show that the ruling parties turned into democratic and functional organizations. He also believes that the dangers faced by the current government are not related to the actions of the Communist opposition, but are inside the coalition. “Despite the complications deriving from a coalition government, it is preferable to one-party government owing to the internal control. But in Moldova it immediately turns into competition,” said Vlad Filat, expressing his regret at the fact that owing to the quarrels between politicians, the people didn’t see the good things done by the Alliance for European Integration.
Ecaterina Mardarovici, executive director of the Women’s Political Club 50/50, said the political crisis was generated by politicians’ resentments. From the viewpoint of a party, it’s normal to want to win in elections the percentage needed to govern alone, but this is a danger to democracy as in Moldova there are no parties with internal democratic life and courageous members, and the mass media does not have access to party meetings to see how decisions are made.
Arcadie Barbarosie, director of the Public Policy Institute (IPP), considers that the early elections are an important factor that made the political players to reach a compromise. “This factor was determinant. Many surveys showed that the elections will be disadvantageous for the ruling parties. The pressure exerted by society by statements and attitudes was another factor. The encouragement of the development partners was the third factor.” He argued that the first and most important lesson learned from the political crisis is that Moldova will have coalition governments for a long time, but these governments are not viable. “The governments must understand that besides managing the state, they play an important role in forming the people’s mentality. The communication at internal and external levels is a lesson to be learned. It is also decisive to discuss the decisions taken and their benefits with society.”
Igor Botan, director of the Association for Participatory Democracy ADEPT and expert of the IPN project, said that when we speak about the solving of the crisis, we want to know what steps the institutions took to overcome it. “The party leaders should have taken more actions to solve the crisis. During the crisis, the coalition government became a real institution. The last agreement of the coalition inspire s a positive feeling that those who accumulated negative experience ultimately understood that things must be put in order,” said the expert. He also said that the agreement of the Pro-European Coalition is a model for relatively viable alliance governments, but society should not be naïve as the component parties will always reach accords behind the scenes.
The Agency published 7 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md: on July 8, “Moldova is doomed to have coalition government, debates” - http://ipn.md/en/arhiva/55478, on July 9 “Communication in coalition government is basic necessity, opinions” - http://ipn.md/en/arhiva/55500 , “PLDM plans to convene most representative congress” - http://ipn.md/en/arhiva/55487, “Vlad Filat: Government fully satisfies society’s need for information” - http://ipn.md/en/arhiva/55487., on July 10 “Ecaterina Mardarovici: We now have a different generation of politicians” - http://ipn.md/en/arhiva/55513 , “Risk of early elections led to solving of political crisis, Arcadie Barbarosie” - http://ipn.md/en/arhiva/55514 , “Agreement of Pro-European Coalition inspires positive feeling, Igor Botan” - http://ipn.md/en/arhiva/55515 .
Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN
