No matter how perfect the Moldovan legislation is, there will always be political reasons for challenging particular decisions. In the April 15 meeting of the Constitutional Court, the Socialists invoked all kinds of arguments that didn’t have a direct connection with the letter of the law. For example, what mimicked consultations mean? A difference between “mimicked” and “formal” is intentionally made as particular consultations can fail, but from formal viewpoint, it was the President’s obligation to hold them. Other inconclusive arguments referred to the real intention of particular political players to invest a government or not. These things can be discussed at political level, but it is impossible to take such allegations without a real legal basis into account, communication expert Vlad Țurcanu stated in IPN’s public debate “Constitutional Court’s judgment: what happened and what will happen in Moldova?”.
Vlad Țurcanu said that in the current dispute between the two institutions, it goes first of all to the change of the political course in Moldova. The way in which the Socialists perceived the CC judgment reveals the stake of a fracture in Moldovan society. If a pro-European Government is invested in Moldova, the other side will lose a lot. The Socialists after the New Year changed their mind due to the poll results and also because they fear a next pro-European Government can marginalize them and those who are pro-Russia.
Those who do not agree with the decision taken yesterday by the CC can exploit the situation that existed at the Court in June 2019, which will always shadow the CC’s activity. The irresponsibility of particular personages of that period set precedents that now enable Igor Dodon to draw a parallel between what’s happening now and what happened then. “For the credibility of the current composition of the Court, that decision against Maia Sandu, when the Court invalidated the President’s second attempt to nominate Natalia Gavrilița for Prime Minister, mattered a lot. Then the Court could have then taken a political decision and have offered Maia Sandu the possibility of nominating Gavrilița, even if there was a parliamentary majority then. Since then, the credibility of the Court has increased. In a hard moment for the pro-European forces in the Republic of Moldova, the Court didn’t accept to take a forced decision,” said Vlad Țurcanu.
He noted a legal decision of the CC cannot be blocked. Here, the political-administrative system of the Republic of Moldova will prove or not its consistency by blocking attempts not to obey a CC decision. “The top problem of those who do not accept the Court’s decision is for them to be rejected by those whom they call to the barricades. I think Moldovan society got tired of these barricades and want things to return to normality even if it will yet last as the parliamentary elections will most probably be held in autumn,” said the expert, noting it is now hard to provide arguments that would help to calm things done on the political arena of Moldova given the tense situation between the two political forces.
The public debate “Constitutional Court’s judgment: what happened and what will happen in Moldova?” is the 183rd installment of IPN’s project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” that is supported by Germany’s Hanns Seidel Foundation.
