“It is rather useful to gradually complement the “list of sins” of Maia Sandu that was initiated by the leader of the PSRM as it would permanently emphasize the difference between the two protagonists and this would contribute to directing the voters if snap or ordinary elections are held...”
Dissemination of empty words
On the even of Epiphany, the president of the Party of Socialists (PSRM) Igor Dodon decided to disseminate empty words. In this regard, he made a symbolic gesture – opened a catastif (list of sins) for his successor as President. The event was preceded by the convening of the meeting of the executive committee of the PSRM, where there were discussed the multiple crises faced by the Republic of Moldova. In the news conference held after this, Igor Dodon took stock of all the failures of President Maia Sandu during her first three weeks in office, underscoring his own successes during his four-year tenure
Referring to the action plan of the PSRM, the party’s leader was rather ambiguous in his assertions. He reiterated that the PSRM wants snap elections until the end of this year. This way, he returned to an older idea of his concerning the appointment of a transitional government, leaving aside the newest idea regarding the swift dissolution of Parliament, whose implementation depends on the PSRM and its consistent behavior in similar situations – non-participation in the Parliament sittings to invest the government so as to use the two attempts that lead directly to the dissolution of Parliament.
However, we must admit that the leader of the PSRM gladdened public opinion with a noteworthy news item. The MPs of the PSRM will request the Constitutional Court (CC) to clarify the “maximum period during which the President is obliged to nominate the candidate for Prime Minister and the penalties faced by the President for not proposing the candidate for Prime Minister”. The move is an unexpected gift for Maia Sandu and was made at the right time, exactly on the day the CC dashed her hopes related to the self-dissolution of Parliament. Evidently, after this move by the PSRM, President Maia Sandu has another occasion for waiting for another one month or two months for the CC’s decision on another topical problem – how much time she has at her disposal for naming a candidate for premiership and what can happen to her if she does not meet this time limit.
As the leader of the PSRM assured us that he anticipated the CC’s decision concerning the unpermitted self-dissolution of Parliament, it is easy to deduce that he also intuits the CC’s response to the announced prerequisite of the PSRM. Most probably, the CC will say that the President must name the candidate for Prime Minister in a reasonable timeframe that in legal practice is usually of three months, which is exactly the period of time needed for ascertaining the circumstances that justify the dissolution of Parliament. The question about the penalties faced by the President is really strange. While holding office, ex-President Dodon repeatedly violated the Constitution and now pretends not to know the penalties for such reprovable deeds. Recently, the CC referred to this problem and clearly noted that the penalty for non-fulfillment of the duties of President is suspension from post by the votes of 2/3 of MPs!
Decalogue of programmatic failures of Maia Sandu
To contribute to the complementation of Maia Sandu’s list of sins, a media campaign would be useful so that this emphasizes and reminds the voters how much the main protagonists on the Moldovan political arena differ from each other. Until then, here it is an example of Decalogue seen through the angle of the preferences of the PSRM, eventual programmatic failures of the President. Maia Sandu will definitely:
- not swim in the Jordan River on Epiphany, as her predecessor did;
- not offer occasions for being suspended for five times during her tenure, as it happened to her predecessor;
- not go to Mount Athos to have secret meetings in the gulls’ club “Tchaika” either alone or together with former mates from the PAS;
- not profane the state symbols, refusing to visit Iran without any reason;
- not demolish the Presidential Palace’s fence until this accessory is put into operation and the documents concerning its building and costs are not found;
- not make a chess board from the skin of animals sacrificed for the parties given at the residence in Condrița;
- not play with Sputnik-V vaccine, which is the only one that is trusted by her predecessor;
- not finance the PAS through offshore areas or through the agency of Costea and Cornel;
- not create a First Lady’s Foundation to organize festivals financed by Orthodox oligarch Konstantin Malofeev,
- not go as an observer to the summits of the Eurasian Economic Union.
Surely, there can be found other examples that would emphasize the difference between President Maia Sandu and her predecessor Igor Dodon. To prove this with a maximum effect, Maia Sandu must swiftly achieve an objective that was set by both of them. This objective is to dissolve Parliament! The inducing of snap elections was a goal of both of them at the start of their tenures. Ex-President Igor Dodon in 2017 tried to initiate a referendum so as to fulfill his electoral promise to dissolve Parliament, but could not achieve this goal. Currently, President Maia Sandu can prove that she can succeed where her predecessor failed. The goal is to remove a corrupt Parliament and to synchronize the presidential tenure with the mandate of a new Parliament.
President Maia Sandu is determined to cause snap parliamentary elections when the parliamentary groups refuse to assume responsibility for forming a parliamentary majority. This thing derives, without the possibility of delay, from her inaugural speech. In the absence of a formalized parliamentary majority that is responsible for the investiture of a government, the President seems to have a free hand for all kinds of maneuvers that can lead to the dissolution of Parliament and calling of snap elections.
President Maia Sandu should yet consult the leaders of the parliamentary parties so as create occasions for efficient communication with the citizens, explaining to them why they insist on snap parliamentary elections. In this regard, it would be useful to have a meeting with representatives of the PSRM so as to assure them that the dissemination of empty words is counterproductive. Maia Sandu could assure the heavyweights of the PSRM that, contrary to Igor Dodon’s assertions, she is in favor of the weekly meetings with the Parliament Speaker and the Prime Minister. Moreover, she could publicly undertake to regularly have such meetings, but immediately after the given posts are occupied by members or affiliates of the PAS. As, Igor Dodon didn’t meet weekly with Adrian Candu and Pavel Filip when these held the given posts. He started to call such meetings at the opportune moment, when the three were from the same nest. For the sake of truth, it should be noted that ex-President Dodon didn’t need to meet with Candu and Filip as he met with the coordinator of the power Vlad Plahotniuc, but in secret, so that no one knew.
The PSRM refused to do President Maia Sandu the favor it did on January 4, 2016 to the executive coordinator Vlad Plahotniuc by not taking part in the Parliament sittings to invest the government of Ion Sturza. That’s why the party and its leader Igor Dodon have only one possibility of restraining President Maia Sandu – to form a parliamentary majority together with the Shor Party, which proved its efficiency in November – December 2020. Consequently, an interim government will be voted in and this will work as long as the PSRM wanted, as it happened in the case of the Chicu Government.
It is rather useful to gradually complement the “list of sins” of Maia Sandu that was initiated by the leader of the PSRM as it would permanently emphasize the difference between the two protagonists and this would contribute to directing the voters if snap or ordinary elections are held.