The government should understand that the draft law to change the electoral system in the form in which it is now cannot be voted in Parliament, considers political analyst Ion Tabarta, who noted that the government insists on the fact that the change in the electoral system is the prerogative of a sovereign state. The Venice Commission does not challenge this, but formulates very clear aspects that should be taken into account: opportunity, consensus and risks of a legal-technical character.
Contacted by IPN, the analyst said the government should improve the electoral system as it says that this is its goal, but no way based on the current bill. The debates on this draft law were rather artificial and weren’t debates with essence and content. “They considered rigid electoral systems, either majority or mixed ones, but didn’t think how we can improve the electoral processes in the Republic of Moldova and hence the political ones,” stated Ion Tabarta.
He noted that there are specified technical aspects that cause a lot of confusion and will later cause interpretations and political misperception. The system can be modified and this is at the discretion of the political class, but not based on this draft law that should be rejected. If the government wants to improve the system, fundamental discussions are needed and the civil society’s recommendations should be taken into account.
The Commission said the proportional system can and should be improved, but not by changing the type. According to the analyst, the current reform that partially keeps the proportional system, but introduces elements of the mixed-member system cannot be done without a territorial-administrative reform because a lot of discussions and doubts cause the delimitation of one-mandate constituencies, and interpretations can exist here. There is also the risk that the Central Election Commission will be politicized. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the CEC has too many powers.
Ion Tabarta also said that this draft law poses a number of evident risks, but there could be also unpredictable risks. The introduction of the mixed-member electoral system could lead to the creation of a two-party system where two large parties will dominate the political arena. The first is the Democratic Party, which declares itself pro-European and will attract the pro-European voters, even based on administrative and media resources and the financial potential. The second is the Party of Socialists that already dominates the political left. Such a law implies democratic risks and will hamper the development of institutional relations and of the party system. It will yet increase the loyalty of persons to particular political leaders.
The full opinion of the Venice Commission on the draft law for Moldova’s electoral system for the election of Parliament was published on June 19. The authors said the draft law was adopted rapidly in Parliament, without the voting being preceded by broad and open debates in society. The Commission does not recommend implementing such a broad reform without a corresponding consensus. The other objections refer to the keeping of a high threshold that advantages big parties and the increase in the number of voters per polling place from 3,000 to 5,000, which, according to the Commission, will hamper the work of electoral functionaries and will increase the probability of irregularities. Among the major risks posed by the draft law, the Commission’s experts mentioned the fact that constituency members of parliament would be vulnerable to being influenced by business interests and the low representation of women in Parliament. In conclusion, the Venice Commission said the change in the electoral system in the proposed form is inopportune.
