Press Release
on the organization of the debate “From division to radicalization?”. Debates series held by the news agency IPN in its conference room with the support of the German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”

Held on 19 August 2024, Debate No. 313 brought together: Andrei Curăraru, of the WatchDog Community NGO, Alexandru Lupușor, lecturer at the State University of Moldova,  and Igor Boțan, IPN project’s standing expert.

Igor Boțan, the series’ standing pundit, noted that social cohesion is a characteristic of a society based on connections and relationships between social units such as individuals, groups, associations, as well as between territorial units. “Social cohesion is, in fact, interdependence characterized by loyalty and solidarity between members of society. Aspects often mentioned in the description of social cohesion include strengthening of social relations, sharing of values ​​and the existence of a common way of interpretation, experiencing a common identity and a sense of community, as well as trust between community members”.

Igor Boțan mentioned that division or polarization of society is the opposite of cohesion, that is, the lack of loyalty and social solidarity. According to him, excessive polarization is dangerous because it can lead to radicalization.

“Radicalization is the process by which particular people or groups go on from holding moderate mainstream views to holding extreme ideological views. This process can occur through exposure to and participation in violent ideological propaganda or through extremist networks. Radicalization increases the likelihood that those exposed will support extremist, violent actions and may even commit such criminal acts themselves. That is, the term ‘radicalization of society’ denotes the desire of some significant social segments to bring a political opinion or a desire to an end point, which crowns the efforts without conciliatory solutions and without any compromise”, said the pundit.

Andrei Curăraru, of the WatchDog Community NGO, believes that division represents a more enduring social phenomenon, and the processes that took place after the declaration of Independence were the immediate effects of the Soviet denationalization policy. “A part of the Moldovan society, regardless of political convictions or certain linguistic aspects, has leaned towards the West, another part towards the East. This geopolitical orientation continues to be a central theme of all elections in Moldova. We understand that the results we have in the polls, the orientation of some politicians or another, always speaks of this division. This is often exploited for political purposes, which are sometimes for a positive goal, such as to create cohesion, and other times negative, which I would call the fragmentation of society”, explains Andrei Curăraru.

“The process of division, while a pendulum-like one – we have situations where division sharpens or returns to a normality where it is reduced to a minimum – continues to be a factor that can be used against our country and society. That is why it is important for our citizens to understand that those who send divisive messages and practice an ‘us versus them’ kind of politics, in fact, are not pursuing the interests of Moldovan society, but narrower interests or interests influenced from the outside”, the expert added.

Alexandru Lupușor, lecturer at the State University of Moldova, believes that division is not a priori harmful for society and its development processes. According to him, a certain polarization is natural and even necessary for society to grow, but there is probably a degree from which radicalization may arise.

“But otherwise, if there weren’t these tensions inherent in society, we would probably talk about an inert society. And it is not only the case of Moldova, our society - it is a quasi-universal phenomenon and specific to democratic societies, in which this debate exists. If there were no alternatives, there would be no positions, even antagonistic ones, to a certain degree, there would be no evolution either”, Alexandru Lupușor added.

In his opinion, it is probably necessary to experience certain tensions in order to produce crystallization also at the structural, institutional and probably also at the mental level.
“The phenomenon of division or polarization is a multi-faceted phenomenon, based on various factors. Of course, the impact will be on the various sections of society, including from a cultural aspect”, said the university lecturer.

This was the 313th installment of the Political Culture Series, run by IPN with the support of the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

The Agency published 4 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md): on 19.08.24, „ From division to radicalization? IPN debate”;-  https://www.ipn.md/en/from-division-to-radicalization-ipn-debate-8004_1106600.html; “Andrei Curăraru: Russia’s influence in Gagauzia is greater than in Transnistria”; https://www.ipn.md/en/andrei-curararu-russias-influence-in-gagauzia-is-greater-than-8004_1106603.html ; „Igor Boțan: European integration is a point of convergence in Moldovan society”;- https://www.ipn.md/en/igor-botan-european-integration-is-a-point-of-convergence-in-8004_1106611.html; „Alexandru Lupușor: Radicalization is due to social-economic vulnerabilities”;- https://www.ipn.md/en/alexandru-lupusor-radicalization-is-due-to-social-economic-vulnerabilities-8004_1106616.html.

Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN