The real reason that made the holding of a public debate on a very important theme impossible seems to be the fully mistaken understanding by the decision-makers of the social life in Moldova not only of the importance and necessity of communicating with civil society over any kind of problems, convenient and inconvenient, but also of the legal and moral obligation of this key aspect of the mandate of ruler given to them by society...
---

On March 28, 2016, IPN News Agency was to stage a debate entitled “Public hearings in the case of ex-Premier Vlad Filat: for and against, advantages and disadvantages, legality and ...”. Regretfully, this didn’t take place even if the organizers considered the theme very topical and useful both given the resonance of the case and the goal pursued by the series of IPN debates “Developing political culture by public debates” that were held for five years and reached the 52nd installment.

The formal reason of the failure is the refusal to take part by political players without whom the IPN found itself unable to ensure a balanced format of debate, with the presence of all or at least of the most important viewpoints on the discussed issue.  

The real reason seems to be the fully mistaken understanding by the decision-makers of the social life in Moldova not only of the importance and necessity of communicating with civil society over any kinds of problems, convenient and inconvenient, but also of the legal and moral obligation of this key aspect of the mandate of ruler given to them by society. As this is not by far the only case of the kind, I think we should examine the created situation in detail, possibly within a semi-case study.

Test No. 1

Thus, several days before March 28, IPN started to issue invitations to possible participants in the debate according to the following algorithm: a) Democratic MP (chosen by the Democratic group) – Liberal-Democratic MP (chosen by the Liberal-Democratic group; b) representative of civil society organizations that are for holding hearings in camera – representative of NGOs that are for making the hearings public; c) representative of the prosecution (the invitation was to be issued to prosecutor Adriana Betisor) – representative of the defense (lawyer Igor Popa). The given algorithm continues to seem sufficiently balanced to us because it was to include a representative of the government, with the Democratic Party (PDM) repeatedly declaring that it assumes responsibility for governance in all the spheres of life, without exception, and of the opposition, with the Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM) having at least one double motivation to take part.

It wasn’t hard to identify the representative of NGOs that are for public hearings because, almost simultaneously, over 30 civil society organizations of those relevant published the Call “Request to try the case of ex-Premier Vlad Filat by public hearings”. With some additional effort, there could have been identified a representative of the NGOs supporting the ‘hearings in camera’ viewpoint. Both Adriana Betisor and Igor Popa showed that they are sufficiently open to the press in general and to IPN in particular.

But we could not go further than the political ‘duo’. The representative of the PDM with whom IPN usually coordinates the participation in its debates sent a univocal negative answer: “We cannot take part in a debate where there is no place for politics. It is about a trial and a person in remand. The subject is within the remit of justice and civil society, not of the politicians”. Even if IPN didn’t agree with such an ‘apolitical’ approach and was put in a shameful situation to decline the participation of the MP of the PLDM, who had already accepted the invitation, the Agency followed the suggestion of the ‘representative of the PDM’ as a proof of its good will and intention.

Test No. 2

Therefore, the format of the debate with the same title was reconfigured and invitations were issued to a new, narrower circle of participants, including two representatives of civil society: one chosen out of the list of signatories of the aforementioned Call, while another one chosen from ‘outside the list’, with public and constantly critical attitude to the work of the former Prime Minister. Minister of Justice Vladimir Cebotari was to be the third participant - the key person who was to have a dialogue with the representatives of civil society and society in general, in front of journalists and cameras. This is also a member of the Supreme Council of Magistrates and, tacitly, a representative of the ruling Democratic Party. Together with the invitation, Minister Cebotari was issued with the text of the Call of the SCOs about the opportunity of making the hearings in the case of Vlad Filat public. By the way, in both of the cases, as in all the 51 previous installments, ADEPT executive director Igor Botan was to take part as the standing expert of IPN’s project.

This is what followed: “The Ministry of Justice, in the person of Mister Cebotari Vladimir, Minister of Justice, welcomes the invitation you made. In this connection, we want to inform you that such invitations are welcome given the general interest they hold for the whole society, on condition that these intentions do not represent interference in justice. With regret, we ascertain that your public debate initiative centers on a particular aspect that is being examined in court and that in the period of the examination can be regarded as influence on the courts of law. Respectfully, adviser of the Minister’s staff,………..”.

What happened ...?

We will not pronounce on the reasons invoked by the representatives of the government for turning down the invitation to take part in the debate because the goal of this exercise is another one. But we have the right to wonder what prevented them from stating these reasons – about the apolitical character of the trial and the danger of pressure being exerted on the judiciary – within public debates held in a balanced format at a time when the Call of the SCOs referred exactly to this: the danger of politicization and interference in justice in the given trial. Ultimately, the given Call does not even have the form of an unconditional imperative, but is rather an invitation to discussions: “If the arguments in favor of the examination of this case by closed hearings are convincing, these should be explained publicly… ”. IPN offered that platform for ‘public explanations’, but this was rejected. It’s true that the Prosecutor General’s Office had a rather swift reaction to the given Call, but stated that the final decision as to the public or closed character of the hearings is taken by the court of law. And then all roads lead to the ‘temple of justice’ that the minister can and should represent with all his powers.

We thus ascertained that there are no really plausible motives for rejecting IPN’s invitation, or at least the invoked reasons weren’t the real ones.

…and why did it happen?

The instructive character of IPN’s project that is aimed, in particular, at developing the political culture of Moldovan society, obliges us to identify other possible motives for the political behavior that out former invitees avoided providing. To ensure greater clarity, we chose the form of theses, without deciphering them much.

- Maybe the SCOs that signed the Call are right about the concerns and suspicions regarding the given trial, while the representatives of the government have fewer arguments to combat these (in the case of the second configuration of the debate)?

- Possibly the representatives of the government are not interested in offering the representatives of the opposition an additional platform for promoting their views (in the case of the first configuration of the debate)?

- Maybe this way they promote a hidden type of censorship in the mass media when the press that tends to be correct in relation to all the viewpoints and to the society’s need to clarify unhampered the big problems is forced to renounce the equidistant forms of communication?

- Perhaps it is about the institution or maintaining of monopoly by particular political forces or messages that are usually favorable for the government on the mass media given that the sources/invitees not the journalists choose the themes for discussion and orientate the course of these discussions?

- Possibly the current rulers or many of them didn’t learn the lesson of a ‘former bearded politician’ who said that he does not need society when he takes particular measures with a social impact. About 10 years ago, this was asked if he consulted the public opinion about the intention to liquidate the municipal press holding, while the answer was like this: “We do not consult, we do and then take part in elections to see if we did right”. Do we indeed have to way for another ten or tens of years for such a simple lesson to be learned?

- Maybe the current rulers or many of them haven’t yet realized that the offering of answers to many social concerns is not only a right, but an obligation and an important component of professionalism?

- Possibly the current rulers or many of them haven’t yet seen the similarity between a large part of the messages formulated by Moldova’s civil society and the conditions formulated by the development partners, in particular the EU, for supporting the current government? Usually, these common requests refer particularly to the freeing of justice from political influence and real, not fake communication and cooperation with different components of civil society and society in general.

-  Maybe the current rulers or many of them will feel offended by the aforementioned suppositions and will be motivated to decline other invitations by IPN to equidistant debates that are useful to society and its political culture. On the other hand, in this concrete case the representatives of the government mad us to look for the real reasons and the searches can be continued. On the other hand, IPN’s statistics show that the representatives of the PDM that now represents the government the last time accepted the invitation to the Agency’s debates exactly half a year ago, when they de facto assumed responsibility for this government and this country…

Valeriu Vasilică, IPN