{Info-Prim Neo Comment} The political negotiations on the management of the outcome of the November 2010 parliamentary elections had several distinctive features, including, they marked the end of an era of a single-party, authoritarian government, and they also differentiated two negotiating models in the case of the center-right and center-left coalition. In the {first part of this comment, published on 18 January 2011} we argued that these, and other features of the negotiations which will be addressed below, are important for their effects on the development of the country. [“Principles and values”, political interests and political hypocrisy] During the post-election negotiation process, such phrases as “principles and values”, “national interest”, “the interests of the country”, which are otherwise positive in nature, were sullied by being used exaggeratedly, inappropriately and insincerely. Often our politicians used them to cover their unwillingness or incapacity to call things by their proper names. And this would qualify, no matter how you slice it, as political hypocrisy. Not necessarily that hypocrisy is always intentionally wicked. Most often this is the expression of a precept of a poorly understood political culture, or even a deficit of it. There is, of course, room for principles and values in negotiations. Anyway, such principles were included in the Second Alliance's founding agreement, which has been published in the meantime, and also in the four-year Government Program. In fact, the established principles deserve all our attention, so we'll talk about them in a subsequent part of this comment. But it is hard to believe that it were “principles and values” that took so much time and efforts. Moreover, well-informed people believe the essence of negotiations was based on political interests, in particular, power-sharing schemes. Minutes before the announcement of the formation of the Second Alliance, EU delegation chief to Moldova Dirk Schuebel was telling an interview with Info-Prim Neo the following: “If I may add one critical remark (on the negotiations), what I was missing during the last four or five weeks since the elections took place is more discussion on the content of the foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, and what different parties have to offer. Instead, I have heard {many formulas like seven-five-four or fifty-fifty, which only refer to the distribution of posts of ministers and of institutions}, instead of thinking about the future of the country, which should be much more important. ”. So, hypocrisy appears to be the basis for inter-political relations and for relations between the political class and society. Why is that politicians try to convince us that they aren't struggling for posts and institutions, but for something more “dignifying”? This is a wrong, insincere position, since political struggle as such is a struggle for power, and consequently, for posts and institutions which can be used to exert influence. It is nothing shameful in these goals to require pretense. Our society sensed this shift of accents and became alerted: “if the politicians don't tell us the truth, what is the truth then, what are they hiding there, what are they negotiating behind our backs”? Political hypocrisy leaves room for grim speculations on alleged (or real?) negotiations on the marking of spheres of influence in the gray economy, on the country's surrender to whatever powerful international actors in exchange for personal benefits and other shocking things. Such rumors have always been popular here. Hypocrisy was at its height in the relationship between the Communists and the Democrats. The negotiations through which these parties attempted to make each other, and society, happy were preceded and then followed by harsh attacks, at times even dirty. Perhaps the degree of hypocrisy would have been lighter had the political actors, before engaging in debates on “principles and values”, established a framework of the negotiating procedure: what is being negotiated, how this is being negotiated, which are the prices of the negotiated matters. Perhaps, for the same purpose, it would have been wise to invite a trustworthy moderator, preferably from abroad, to oversee, in particular, the establishment of the rules of the game in the negotiation process. Anyway, the phenomenon of political negotiations has taken root in Moldova. They should be handled carefully, since this could be another source of further modernization of the country's model of governance and of society's democratization. [The abyss of absolute mistrust] The platform of negotiations for both the center-right and center-left coalitions was built over an abyss of absolute mistrust. Mistrust has marked the political relations between rivals and partners, on both the vertical and horizontal, before, during and after the elections; before, during and after negotiations. At a certain point, after so many revelations and reciprocal accusations, we came to understand that the First Alliance and, consequently, our society's fate, had hung by a thread. And then we questioned ourselves: if they don't trust one another at all, why should we trust them?.. What will happen if the Second Alliance is placed on the same wax seat like in that folk tale, and who is responsible for pushing things until they are placed on the wax seat all the time? Political mistrust has remained a reality in Moldova, and this also stems from the wrong understanding of the rules of political culture or from its deficiency. The mistrust between partners appears as a result of small elbowing every now and then, small “victories” at another one's expense, which tend to backfire like a boomerang. manifested in lack of confidence. The mistrust between political rivals is the consequence of direct attacks, either warranted or unwarranted, made without considering the possibility that you might need that political party as a partner, for example, in order to overcome a political deadlock. It was utter reciprocal mistrust that made a coalition between the Communists and Democrats impossible, even if such a coalition would have been more natural for the two parties which are left-of-center in orientation. The negotiations demonstrated that the current political leaders are largely incompatible. It is because of the communist origins they and their political parties have; we all have, historically. But these are the only politicians we've got. They are condemned to ally with one another, because from now on they will have to get used to coalition governments as a rule; and we, society, are condemned to live with it. Reciprocal trust, compatibility, as well as political culture as a hole, can be either embraced or imposed, like any education. For example, polls and rankings should include new criteria of political professionalism: compatibility with other leaders, negotiation skills, capacity to combine compromise with the party's interests etc. Even inexperienced job applicants find it useful to integrate in their resumes such information as teamwork ability, or ability to work under pressure, or initiative. The Moldovan political class now has to prepare its lessons in advance, and the outcome of the negotiations, in particular the text of the Alliance's founding agreement gives us some hope that it will be so. ...Now I understand better why at the beginning of the previous century a foreign king was seated on the Romanian throne. “A king from a people with more brains and less narrow ambition”... Is political culture able to help us alter these “values and principles”? {The next part of the comment will address the behavior of each political actor in the post-election talks.} [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]