Press Release
on the organization of the debate “Protest movements in Moldova: reasons, manifestations, specific features, developments, benefits and threats”, the 39th installment of the “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” Series; Public debates series held by the news agency IPN in its conference room with the support of the German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”
The 39th debate involved representatives of the four largest protest movements that emerged in Moldovan society not long ago, but in a rather powerful way: Igor Botan, member of the Civic Platform “Dignity and Truth”; Dinu Trincanu, a man running farming businesses in Edinet, district; Elena Podoleanu, the representative of the National Unity Bloc, and Boris Muravschi, the representative of the Common Patriotic Bloc “We Save Moldova”, general-major in reserve. The role of expert was played by Sergiu Ostaf, executive director of the Resource Center for Human Rights (CReDO).
We didn’t manage to bring representatives of the government to the debate on the issue even if we made a number of invitations in this respect. We considered that the presence of government representatives was necessary given that a large part of the demands put forward by the protesters are intended for the power and it is important to better realize the government’s position in particular areas. But even more important for our series of debates centering on the political culture is to try to better understand the protests as a phenomenon because these, by their scale, forms of manifestation and variety, are newer, less known and less studied even compared with the acts of the government and its reactions.
The major goal of the debate and its novelty in addressing the subject reside in the fact that the protests as a phenomenon were examined as a whole rather than by component parts, also because they are perceived this way by the largest part of the population. As the largest part of the population, the participants in the debate were put in the situation to answer a series of questions about the protests, including: Can we today speak about a distinct phenomenon of protest movements? Is it a new phenomenon in the recent history of the Republic of Moldova, is it a positive or a negative phenomenon? How should the ordinary people perceive this phenomenon? Should the people be glad or be sad or even afraid? Can we formulate a definition of the current situation? Does the old definition for ‘revolutionary situation” match?
The 39th debate also brought a big change in the formal of the series of debates. For the first time, our permanent expert Igor Botan represented a particular current, a particular viewpoint and a particular position. We decided to make such a change with difficulty because we are aware that our series of debates have a certain degree of credibility, especially owing to Mister Botan’s image of independent and impartial expert. It was his decision and we had to respect it. But, possibly, in this metamorphosis we can also see one of the signals of the big changes in our contemporary society, represented including by the protest movements – a distinct sign that our society is seething, as some experts, politicians and ordinary people in Moldova say.
In this connection, there were debated subjects related to the main theme, including: Citizens' protest movement: reasons, particularities, goals; Farmers' protest movement: reasons, particularities, goals; Pro-unification protest movement: reasons, particularities, goals; Patriotic protest movement: reasons, particularities, goals; Common features of the four existing movements; Common features and differences between the current and past protest movements: the national revival movement; the 1992 Transnistrian conflict, 7 April 2009, the 2010 'velvet revolution'; Convergent and divergent tendencies of the current protest movements; A political, societal, or sociopolitical phenomenon?; For or Against? For and Against? Protests or Negotiations; Protests and Negotiations?; Government's reactions; Political and geopolitical factors; Common and specific goals; Competent prognoses of the developments and impact of the protest movements. Which are the next steps: protest camps, snap elections? The quality and credibility of the initiative groups. How do we ensure that this time we avoid 'post-revolution' disenchantment? Benefits and threats: citizen activism and engagement, improved governance, political and social destabilization, derailment to a wrong track, the fate of the European course etc.;
One of the general conclusions formulated by the participants in the debate is that the protest movements are an absolutely normal phenomenon, typical for all democracies. They represent an instrument of expressing a discontent existing in society, which is wanted on the public agenda. Also, the prevailing dissatisfaction must join society, not divide it, while the protesters, regardless of the ideology and external course promoted, must become a force.
CReDO executive director Sergiu Ostaf, expert of the project, said the protesting movements shape and give voice to particular problems faced in society and, when the authorities do not manage to swiftly respond to the demands, these get a more pronounced shape. These movements are an absolutely normal and democratic phenomenon that highlights particular problems and through which they aim to change the views on particular subjects. Everything depends on how the public institutions react to protesters’ demands because the system difficulties intensify protests.
Igor Botan, a member of the Civic Platform “Dignity and Truth”, said the goal of the civic movements is to return things to normality and to awaken the people by transforming them into citizens. “The platform’s members are different people, with a different background, but who considered it necessary to demonstrate when US$1 billion was stolen and this is a tax imposed on the people by the politicians who promote the European integration,” he stated, adding that the parties ruling the country can act in a European manner if they consider themselves ‘pro-European’ – the leaders should resign and should renew the administration. “But this will never happen in our country because they call themselves pro-Europeans, but their acts show that they are not.”
Elena Podoleanu, the representative of the National Unity Bloc, said that the situation in Moldova left the people without hope, especially after 2009, when the people took to the streets. “It is evident that civil society becomes more and more active and an increasing number of people go out to protest, demonstrating peacefully and stating their opinions. We see that society embraces this unionist current that comes to ultimately bring to an end the consequences of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. We come with a truth to civil society and tell it what we are and where we should go. All our protests are peaceful and every citizen has the right to free expression,” said the young woman.
Boris Muravschi, the representative of the Common Patriotic Bloc “We Save Moldova”, police general-major in reserve, said two trends can be now seen in the protesting movements – an internal one that is motivated by the state of the people and the committed illegalities, and another one related to the external vector. “The unionist organizations impose their position and this is not right even if we respect the opinion stated by one person or another,” he stated. In reply, Elena Podoleanu denied that the movement imposes its position.
According to Boris Muravschi, currently society lives in poverty and this fact determines protesting movements based on the people’s dissatisfaction. “If the state administration worked honestly and we felt this, a large number of organizations would disappear because the people would not need to demonstrate and protest,” he stated.
Nicu Trincanu, businessman working in agriculture from Edinet district, said protesting movements appeared lately in different sectors and this is beneficial because, when the people are not satisfied, they feel the need to protest. In the case of farmers, the demands are very specific, but society must realize that the problems of farmers will affect all the people. All the protesting forces should unite as to as to achieve their objectives.
The Agency published 6 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md): on 25.05.15, „Protest movements are an absolutely normal phenomenon for all democracies, IPN debate” - http://www.ipn.md/en/integrare-europeana/69600; on 26.05.15, „Igor Botan: Remonstrance must unite all activist forces, IPN debate” - http://www.ipn.md/en/integrare-europeana/69601; „Sergiu Ostaf: Messages of protest movements are authentic. IPN debate” - http://www.ipn.md/en/special/69607; “Elena Podoleanu: Civil society becomes more active. IPN debate” - http://www.ipn.md/en/integrare-europeana/69610; „Businessman: Rulers want to divide society so as to safeguard their interests. IPN debate” - http://www.ipn.md/en/special/69611; “Boris Muravschi: Any protest movement involves danger of confrontations. IPN debate” - http://www.ipn.md/en/special/69612.
Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN
