The idea of organizing a referendum before completing the negotiation process with the EU is untimely. Moreover, in the absence of a broad consensus in society, there is a risk that this exercise of democracy will be politicized, deputy director of the Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE) stated in a public debate hosted by IPN News Agency. According to him, there is no risk that the idea of European integration of Moldova will not be supported in the referendum.
The IPRE expert said the idea of a national referendum on the country’s accession to the European Union should have been supported by all political forces, and the amendments to the Electoral Code proposed by the PAS majority should have been supported by the opposition MPs as well.
“This referendum, besides national strategic goals, also pursues the political goal of promoting the ruling party. When Parliament decided that the referendum can take place simultaneously with the presidential election, it also introduced this element of promoting the ruling party. If a national discussion was wanted, the amendments to the Electoral Code should also have been adopted by an absolute majority of votes in Parliament, with the participation of the opposition,” stated Stanislav Giletski.
The expert is convinced that the result of the referendum on the country’s accession to the EU will be positive, but criticizes the government for the applied double standards. In 2019, the PDM government organized a referendum on the reduction of the number of MPs from 101 to 61 and the possibility for citizens to withdraw the seat of MP. The ACUM bloc then criticized the organization of the plebiscite concurrently with the parliamentary elections.
“There are no risks related to our desire for European integration. There is a risk of politicization of this referendum. But given the conducted polls, there is no risk that a positive result will not be obtained in the referendum. I believe that society will support this referendum. But we will see what the results will be in the presidential election. We will see if the referendum will bring the additional points that the President wants to get as a result of these two electoral exercises. What matters is the nuances of how this referendum came about. You cannot adopt an Electoral Code condemning the 2019 referendum organized by the former government simultaneously with the parliamentary elections, say that that referendum was used to manipulate public opinion and in a year come and announce that you want to maintain the simultaneous organization of these exercises. Sustainable policy cannot be done circumstantially,” explained the deputy director of the Institute for European Policies and Reforms.
Moreover, according to the IPRE expert, the idea of organizing the referendum is untimely as most of the EU member states held this electoral exercise after the accession negotiations were completed.
“The moment when this referendum is to take place is too early. Besides North Macedonia, which held a referendum because they also had to approve the change of the country’s name, there are no European Union countries that held referendums before the negotiation process was over. The country’s objective is to complete the negotiations by 2030. In this connection, the way should have been paved for holding an eventual referendum. There is no risk of a failure in the referendum, but there is a risk that this referendum will contain a forced element, namely the organization of the referendum before the logical process of events, before the successful completion of negotiations,” stated Stanislav Giletski.
The public debate entitled “Consensus and rivalry in the pro-EU referendum” was the 297th installment of IPN’s project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” which is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
