Danube sector Comments Regions

"Prolonged jump" or coalition vicissitudes in Moldova

Two months after the parliamentary elections that were organized by 24 in February 2019 in the Republic of Moldova, the ruling coalition was never formed. Under the current legislation, within a period of three months after the first parliamentary session, a new parliamentary structure should form a majority or situational coalition, elect a parliamentary speaker, members of parliamentary committees and vote for a new government. None of these goals was achieved. Simultaneously, deputy Democrat Party of Moldova (SDP) Sergiu Sirbu filed an application with the Constitutional Court requesting consideration of the possibility that the DPM, which heads the government, could continue to govern the country (18 months) in the event that Moldova will again plunge into the political crisis.


The first meeting of deputies of the new parliamentary convocation that took place on 21 March 2019 of the year was temporarily interrupted, without any preconditions to continue in the near future. With this in mind, more and more experts believe that the Republic of Moldova is moving to a new political crisis, and President Igor Dodon will be forced under the current legislation, in the near future to dissolve the parliament and announce early parliamentary elections. This scenario is one of the possible and experience in its implementation in Moldova already exists. However, not all politicians admit this democratic luxury. In this situation, there are particularly opposition political parties to the ACUM bloc (Action and Solidarity and Platform for Dignity and Truth).
However, for a deeper understanding of what is happening in political life in Moldova, it is important to analyze what interests are in each of the electoral races of the political parties.
Thus, the pro-Russian Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM), the leader of which is Zinaida Hrechan, and sometimes, part-time, and the President himself Igor Dodon, received the most deputy mandates. The second place is the pro-European paramilitary PM, headed by the oligarch Vlad Plakhotnyuk, and the third is the pro-European ACUM bloc, where the power is actually shared by Maya Sandu and Andrew Nastas. Also, the party was Ilan Shore, who received 7 mandates, and three mandates from independent deputies, who are suspected of cooperating with the DPM.


After the election, the President of the Republic of Moldova, Igor Dodon called on all the parties to sit down at the negotiating table and find a support point for the future government. However, the head of state and his party, the PSBM, proposed conditions that complicated the search for a compromise. So, Dodon announced that he would not allow the creation of a government with the help of elected deputies (such as the formation of Paul Philip's government in 2016 year). In turn, PSDM demanded the abolition of the law on the transfer of the stolen bill to the state debt, the abolition of the law "On the fight against propaganda", the consolidation of the status of the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication, the adoption of a package of "Gagauz laws", the restitution of the President, in particular the return of his "wing" "Information and Security Services, National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Reintegration and Public Order.
In turn, the leaders of the ACUM bloc announced that they will not conduct talks with the PMO leader Vlad Plakhotnyuk, who is accused of capturing state institutions. They require his removal from the power of the DPM, which he certainly can not agree with. However, members of the ACUM Block should understand that they do not elect the leaders of other parties and should be ready for any calls, even if this call is named by Vlad Plakhotnyuk.


DPM instead decided to stick to a sustained position and announced that it was ready to go on a coalition with the political forces that share the external and internal vectors of the country's development with them.
Nevertheless, both PSBM and PDM initially negotiated with the ACUM block, but the demands put forward by the parties have become obstacles to finding compromises. After several rounds of negotiations with the start of the PSBM with the ACUM bloc, and then the PCB with the PDM, it became clear that the creation of a new parliamentary coalition under such conditions and the nature of the negotiations is impossible. Each party has its own requirements and nobody wants to compromise. And to create the majority without cooperation with the opponent under the current schedule of forces is impossible.


Nevertheless, after the meeting of the DPPM and the DPM with experts, the impression was that the "agreement" between the two parties is already a reality, due to the fact that both have common interests and goals. However, the PSBM did not want to sacrifice its image to its Russian partners and its own electorate, and to go immediately after the elections without negotiating a coalition with the DPM. In addition, the PSBM did not fail to become a victim of the intrigue of the Democrats. After all, the party list of socialists elected to the parliament gives grounds to consider that not all deputies from the PSDM will be fully supportive of their own leader's position. That is, there is a certain game where the situation is brought to a level where the voter will be ready to perceive their coalition as somewhat inevitable and the one that is optimal in the current situation. So far, everything goes to the early elections.


Against this background, in the ACUM block, they do not believe in the integrity of the socialist deputies and their independence from the Democratic Party. Under public pressure, and in order to curb election promises, ACUM deputies negotiate with the Socialists, knowing that a compromise will not be achieved. But here it is important to note the following: ACUM has the least resources for a new electoral company, and it is from it that a part of civil society demands action in the direction of creating a situational coalition with the Socialists to "overthrow" the power of the DPM. At the same time, the adoption of conditions from the Socialists, without any arrangements in favor of reaching election promises before the voters, or an alliance with the DPM, which offered the members of the ACUM Bloc the premier's chair, means a loss of support for its own electorate. The international partners of the ACUM Block, which often appear in the speeches of the members of the ACUM Block, also want results: stability is political and economic, more internal responsibility, transparency and predictability.
At the same time, most of the political parties that entered the new parliament are not particularly interested in early elections in the ACUM Bloc. They do not have enough financial and human resources ...
As far as PDM is concerned, this is one of the most financially secured political forces of the Republic of Moldova, which has regional support through local authorities. For PPM, it is not such a big problem to go to the extraordinary parliamentary elections. However, there are also preconditions for thinking that stability is one of the most important goals for the party at the moment.


It is very important for the Democrats to achieve the external support they have lost over the past few years (both Europeans and Americans). Also, the leaders of this party lack international recognition of the results achieved. So far, there is such an attitude that they are not sufficiently democratic and not sufficiently European to behave in domestic and foreign policy. Avoiding early parliamentary elections and finding compromises may be part of a strategy of persuading international partners of positive and honest intentions. But, precisely in this situation, a very important role is played by what was done, or on the contrary, by this party.
Western partners (EU and US) had two expectations from the Moldovan authorities: fair elections and political will for the post-electoral compromise. Despite some violations of the electoral code, the results of the election were recognized by both international observers and Western partners. Only in Moscow dissatisfaction with the results was formulated in a more aggressive form. Instead, the Kremlin realized that it would have to change its attitude towards its local partners (PPPM) and even increased the pressure on political decisions in Moldova through Transnistria.


In this way, now it is said that there is a political crisis in Moldova that is not entirely correct. The political crisis will begin after May 21 this year if a compromise is not reached. So far, there are two scenarios that are most likely. The first is an extraordinary election, and the second is a "contract" between the PSBM and the DPM in order to prevent a new political crisis in the country. It is for the second scenario that the voter is preparing for today. Political forces are declaratively trying to negotiate and find a compromise, but in reality it is very difficult to achieve it. In either of these two scenarios, a mixed election system will not be abandoned, leaving all the available benefits for the PDM. For the ACUM Unit, the role of oppositional forces in the parliament is set aside. Any agreements between ACUM and PDM will be considered by the electorate as a betrayal. It is from one side. However, on the other hand, nobody was able to withstand any contracts, alliances or other forms of dialogue with the DPM ...

Angela Gramada, President of the Association of Experts on Security and Global Issues (ESGA, Romania)

Published in the analytical bulletin "CHALLENGES AND RISKS Security Review" CDC No 8 (119)