Press Release
on the organization of the debate “Why politicians again need more time to form a majority coalition and what risks do the Moldovans face in this situation?”, the 40th 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”
Invited to take part in debate 40 were the representatives of all the formal parliamentary groups, except the Socialist one, whose leaders stated categorically and from the very beginning that they were not going to participate in any talks on a coalition government. Eventually, none of the invited Democrats accepted the invitation, and one hour before the event Liberal Corina Fusu also called in to say she wouldn't make it. One can conclude that such an uncertain conduct displayed by the representatives of two out of three groups involved in the negotiations reflected the general incertitude that dominated the talks at that time, a state which was later confirmed. Another conclusion that can be formulated is that the debate on the announced subject was useful and opportune. It can be also said that, despite the above, the debate achieved its goal due to the presence of a representative from one of the groups participating in the negotiations, a representative from the opposition Communist group, as well as to the presence of the Project's standing expert, given that this format allowed the speakers to discuss the entire range of stringent issues facing the Moldovans today.
Perhaps some speakers may have disagreed with the wording of the debate's question where it referred to a delay in the negotiation process. Perhaps the parties participating in the talks could have argued that “only” two weeks passed from the local run-offs, and thus from the moment when the negotiations could properly start, and that during these two weeks some talks did take place, on various levels and quite intensely. While this may be true, the following counter-arguments still stand in the public perception:
1. In a situation of a great crisis that engulfs Moldova, even two weeks is a lot;
2. We have the experience of the previous negotiations, which lasted for three months but failed to produce a sustainable outcome and even triggered significant setbacks;
3. In a way, we could say that these talks were started long ago, as early as last December, given that they now involve the same actors, with the same demands and the same goals. Willingly or unwillingly, a break was announced for those negotiations and now they have resumed. One must agree that seven months is an unacceptably long period of time, especially considering the current state of the nation;
4. One more serious reason to debate this issue: the leaders of all the negotiating parties promised us the talks would be transparent, unlike the previous time, but as this doesn't happen, we have again serious reasons for concern.
We see that opinions vary about how long the negotiations should last and what they should deliver, and this can be attributed to the different understandings of how the negotiations should be in concept: when do they start, which are the requisites that the participants should respect? etc. These are some principles that the political class, and society as a whole, must clarify, if we want to avoid remaining the hostages of some obscure conditions of forming the government. This is perhaps the original threat for all kids of other threats that Moldova is facing today or could face in the future.
In light of the semi-educative nature of the Project, the expert Igor Botan was asked to discuss whether or not the current negotiations meet some general criteria recognized in societies of democratic tradition. In this context, Igor Botan recalled that in 2009 German experts came to Chisinau to help the pro-European parties form a governing coalition, but they were surprised to find out that their presence at those talks wasn’t wanted. “When a ruling coalition was to be formed by two parties in Germany, the representatives of those parties worked out a common government program based on the promises included in their campaigns. In Moldova they decided that it is better to hold the talks in secret, even if the politicians said the negotiations will be open and transparent. If these people had been honest, at these talks that they said would be transparent they would have discussed in detail how to carry out what they promised. My opinion is that they negotiate now as earlier, with secret protocols and by promoting group interests,” stated the expert.
Liberal-Democratic MP Valeriu Ghiletski said the fact that the negotiations continue and didn’t stop should be appreciated. “I do not agree that the talks are held in secret. They are rather discreet, but what is important is for results to be achieved. They should be discreet or the negotiation process will be affected. What is important for us is the negotiated formula, the program, the candidates, etc.” he stated.
He also said that the goal of the talks is to invest a government by the end of July. “By the end of this week, the constitutive documents will be probably agreed. There will be different groups of discussion with experts. This government has to deal with acute problems. There will be made changes at institutional level. I think more rigorous parliamentary control is needed. We should learn the lesson and take everything in our hands. An intervention mechanism is also needed. The negotiations will advance. I’m hopeful that we will have a Government and the government program by the end of this month,” said Valeriu Ghiletski.
Communist MP Artur Reshetnikov expressed his regret at the fact that the parliamentary parties didn’t accept the PCRM’s invitation to hold discussions in a broader format. “It’s a pity that the parties didn’t accept. It would have been an opportunity to negotiate in a different way. The current negotiations are a déjà vu because we witnessed a similar situation in 2009, 2010, and 2013. It seems that the political leaders make a show. The whole political class does not have the experience of governing in a coalition. There was a not very successful attempt at the end of the 1990s and then new attempts in 2009 and 2010, the alliances No. 1 and No. 2. There was a reformed coalition, secret agreements and distributed posts. It was established that the negotiations were in fact used to satisfy certain interests. We consider there are two obstacles that hinder the formation of a normal government – the frauds in the banking system and the party interests,” stated the lawmaker. According to him, given the serious political, economic and financial crisis, the delay in forming a government is almost criminal and a bad signal will be transmitted to the people if they continue this way.
The debate's speakers also discussed, more or less in detail, the following facets of the subject: Why the topic is so important for the society's political culture and for the country's future; the regulatory framework of the negotiations: legislation, rules, domestic and foreign experiences; the pre-negotiation period: objective reasons and reasons for concern: a) why it is needed; b) real or invented necessity; c) a preparatory period; d) a period of preconditions; e) a substitute for the formal negotiations; f) a camouflage for the negotiations justifying their non-transparent stage; the negotiation period: legal framework, the risks of both premature and delayed solutions; Parallel negotiations at different levels: political correctness and morality. Benefits and risks; the current negotiations are new or just a sequel of the talks held six months ago? Lessons learned and lessons to be learned; the significance of the optimistic tone displayed by the pro-European parties, and of the critical tone displayed by other parties, in relation to the progress and outcome of the talks; why the negotiations are being delayed: a) objective and subjective reasons; b) domestic and external reasons; c) reasons related to national interests and party or personal interests; d) reasons related to political culture and what the large public thinks about the progress of the negotiations; the risks arising from the negotiations being protracted: a) objective and subjective risks; b) domestic and external risks; c) risks related to national interests and party or personal interests; d) risks of the political class and society; conditions and solutions for preventing protraction: a) objective and subjective conditions and solutions; b) domestic and external conditions and solutions; c) conditions and solutions related to national interests and party or personal interests; d) the society's potential to influence a correct and smooth progress of the negotiations; the quality of negotiations, criteria available to society to evaluate them; variants of outcomes of the negotiations to form a coalition, and their impact for the political class and society; international models of overcoming problems like the ones faced by Moldova.
The Agency published 7 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md): on 13.07.15, „IPN debate: Why do politicians need time to form ruling coalition?” - http://www.ipn.md/en/special/70643; „Valeriu Ghiletski: Country faces problems that could be discussed in a broad format” - http://www.ipn.md/en/politica/70644; „Artur Reshetnikov: It’s a pity that ruling parties didn’t reply to PCRM’s call” - http://www.ipn.md/en/politica/70645; “ Igor Botan: I think they now negotiate as earlier, with secret protocols” - http://www.ipn.md/en/special/70646; on 14.07.15, „The more difficult talks are, the better government agreement will be, opinion” - http://www.ipn.md/en/politica/70650; “Early parliamentary elections are imminent, Communist MP” - http://www.ipn.md/en/politica/70651; “Igor Botan: I convinced myself over past few years that politicians promote obscure interests” - http://www.ipn.md/en/special/70652.
Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN
