BUCHAREST—The landslide victory of former speaker of the Parliament Yevgeny Shevchuk in the December 25 Transnistrian presidential elections came as a surprise to observers in Moldova, Russia, and the West. Shevchuk, who won 74 percent of the vote in the run-off, overcame the challenges of the Moscow-backed candidate Anatoly Kaminski and the incumbent of 20 years, Igor Smirnov, who lost in the first round. Transnistria’s new leader is widely seen as representative of a younger generation, having proposed constitutional reform in 2009 to limit presidential powers. Shevchuk had focused his campaign on fighting corruption and nepotism, which resonated well in a region where people are struggling to overcome economic hardship and where the leadership was often accused of embezzling funds meant for humanitarian purposes. His first order of business after being sworn in as president was to dismiss over 80 state officials, including the heads of government and law enforcement agencies, appointed by Smirnov.

The coming to power of a reform-minded leader represents a long-awaited change in Transnistria, and marks a period of newfound optimism, not just for this disputed region, but also for neighboring Moldova. Although the Moldovan government did not recognize the legality of these elections, its officials are now hopeful of a more constructive dialogue. Moscow also welcomed the shift of power, having lately seen Smirnov as an obstacle to finding a solution to the protracted but frozen Transnistrian conflict. Although Shevchuk was not the Kremlin’s number one pick, he was nevertheless reassured that Transnistria can continue to rely on Russia’s friendly assistance and cooperation.

Shevchuk is also believed to be on good terms with officials in Kiev and is seen as a more progressive figure in Brussels. He was one of the few Transnistrian officials whose five-year travel ban to member states of the European Union was lifted at the beginning of 2008. He is also described by former EU Special Representative to Moldova Kalman Mizsei as a modernizer, and someone who should be welcomed by the European Union.

The election of Shevchuk sets the stage for a new dynamic in the region. Although he shares his predecessor’s stance on Transnistrian sovereignty, there are already clear signals that relations between Transnistria and Moldova will gradually improve. In his inaugural speech, Shevchuk promised to establish good neighborly relations with Moldova and Ukraine and to ensure the free movement of people across the frontier. He also noted that Transnistria needed to modernize and better integrate with regional economies, which would be impossible without better relations with Moldova. It now remains to be seen whether Shevchuk will follow up his rhetoric with concrete actions.

Change will not come quickly, and it is highly unlikely that Transnistria will reunite with Moldova in the near future. But with another round of talks scheduled for February, and with a more reform-minded leadership in Transnistria, Moldova might finally have a serious interlocutor in its efforts at finding a solution to this long-standing conflict.

Dinu Toderascu is Program Officer with the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Bucharest.

Share/Bookmark

BUCHAREST — Sometimes, democratic progress can be gauged with a ruler. Last Sunday in Moldova, it measured exactly 94.5 centimeters or almost 37 inches—the length of the ballot paper Moldovan voters were issued when they went to the polls for the third time in the last 19 months to elect a parliament. A total of 20 political parties and 19 independent candidates registered for the November 28 parliamentary elections, competing for 101 seats in the Moldovan legislature.

The citizens of Moldova—including those living abroad—acknowledged the importance of these elections with an impressive 59 percent voter turnout. In Moldova’s capital, Chisinau, over 60 percent of those who were registered to vote went to cast their ballots on Sunday. A record number of people voted outside Moldova, too, forming long lines at Moldovan Embassies in Bucharest, Paris, and Moscow, clearly determined to exercise their constitutional right. International observers concluded that yesterday’s early parliamentary elections in Moldova met most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and were administered in a transparent and impartial manner, having been held in a competitive and pluralistic environment.

Twenty-four hours later and after counting all the ballots, the final results placed the Communist Party of Moldova in the lead with 39 percent. Prime Minister Vlad Filat’s Liberal Democratic Party came second with 29 percent and can be considered the winner of these elections, gaining an additional 13 percent on top of their vote in the July 2009 elections. Marian Lupu and his Democratic Party came out third with 12 percent, followed by the Liberal Party, led by Acting President Mihai Ghimpu, with just short of 10 percent. The Alliance Moldova Noastra, the fourth component of the pro-western Alliance for European Integration, did not garner enough votes to pass the 4-percent threshold and will not make it into the next legislature.

Although the Communist Party remains the largest faction in the next parliament with 42 MPs, the decrease in the Communists’ support is noticeable. They have lost eighteen seats over the last three election cycles. The remaining three democratic parties combined will now have 59 seats. This would allow them to appoint the Prime Minister, as well as the next Speaker of the Parliament, but not the President, which would require a three-fifths majority of 61.

Following Sunday’s elections, Moldova is in the same situation it has been for the last year-and-a-half. The previous two parliaments failed to elect a president. Now, since none of the parties represented in the future parliament has 61 votes, there will have to be yet another round of negotiations. Members of the Alliance for European Integration have said on a number of occasions that they would like to preserve the alliance after the elections, despite having conducted separate electoral campaigns. Prime Minister Filat, now heading the second-largest party in the next parliament with 32 MPs, has already invited his former coalition partners, Marian Lupu and Mihai Ghimpu, to discuss the next steps. The leader of the Communist Party and former president of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, also has voiced his willingness to discuss future governing coalitions with Lupu and with Filat as possible partners, but ruled out any potential partnership with the Acting President Ghimpu and his party.

Filat has made it clear that a coalition with the Communists is out of the question for him and his Liberal Democratic Party. The Democratic Party of Marian Lupu is only eligible for 15 seats in the next parliament. But Lupu (himself a former Communist) has indicated that he is willing to consider cooperation with the Communists. This gives his Democrats the biggest bargaining power in future post-electoral governing structures. Lupu has publicly declared his aspirations to become the next president of Moldova. Still, the Democrats and the Communists together will only have 57 votes—so they will need the Liberals’ support.

Despite these uncertain coalition prospects (and the possibility of a renewed blockade), these elections do demonstrate that Moldova is striving for democratic maturity. The decrease in support for the pro-Russian Communist Party, as well as the growing number of voters who favor the Western-oriented democratic parties show that Moldovan society is changing. This has not gone unnoticed by the international community there, which is showing support. Only last week, the EU agreed to allocate Moldova 41 million euros to help build state institutional capacity, along with an additional 79 million euros to support Moldova’s business environment, create new jobs, and transfer experience and expertise from European institutions. These are concrete examples that Moldova is on the right track. Now, Moldovan politicians need to realize that lingering political crises are no longer allowed if Moldova’s wish to become part of the European political family is to be taken seriously.

Dinu Toderascu is a Program Officer with the Bucharest Office of the German Marshall Fund

Share/Bookmark

BUCHAREST — Last week, democracy was put to a test in Moldova. The country’s citizens went to the polls on September 5 to vote on a referendum to amend Article 78 of the Constitution so that the president could be elected directly by the people. The referendum had been triggered by the failure—twice—of the Parliament to elect the president, mainly because the Communist Party refused to vote (61 votes are needed for the election of the President, and the Communists are the largest grouping with 48 of 101 seats). In order to put an end to the year-long political crisis, the ruling Alliance for European Integration, comprising four liberal and democratic parties, decided to change the constitution so that the president could be elected by a popular vote.

Yet the referendum failed, because Moldovan law mandates a turnout of at least one-third of the electorate, and only 30.29 % of the voters went to the polls. The failure was a very unpleasant surprise—not least to the organizer of a recent survey, published on the eve of the referendum, which predicted that as many as 73% of voters might go to the polls. The pollster had argued that due to the “peculiarity” of the Moldovan electorate, which—he said—often says one thing but does the opposite, probably around 50% of voters would go to the polls.  Well, it didn’t happen.

The ruling alliance, which includes Prime Minister Vlad Filat’s Liberal Democratic Party and Acting President Mihai Ghimpu’s Liberal Party, were sure that the referendum would pass. Taken aback by its failure, the alliance has admitted that it was mainly due to the four parties’ inability to put forward a coordinated message. Prime Minister Filat also acknowledged that the opposition Communist Party had been very efficient in convincing voters to boycott the referendum and not go to the polls. The Communists, led by Vladimir Voronin, claimed that the low turnout had in reality been a vote of no confidence for the government.

All the same, the referendum was a successful democratic exercise for Moldova, with no influence from abroad. International observers said the referendum had been well organized, noting that what small violations there had been could not have influenced the results.

According to Moldovan law, the failure of the referendum means the parliament must be dissolved and early parliamentary elections held. Members of the ruling alliance agree, and have floated November 21 as a tentative date. President Ghimpu has confirmed that he plans to set the electoral process in motion, but he appears to be in no rush.

So why did the referendum fail? The Communist Party, faithful to tradition, was able to rely on the discipline of its supporters (about 35% of the electorate), who did as they were instructed and stayed at home. On the other hand, and as the ruling alliance itself admitted, the four parties’ uncoordinated campaign before the referendum confused the electorate. Moreover, in their confidence that the referendum would pass, some members of the alliance practically were already campaigning for the presidency, pushing the referendum issue to the sidelines. This mistaken confidence led voters to think that the referendum would pass the low threshold of 33%; as a result, many did not bother to vote. Moldovans living abroad, on whose support the ruling alliance relied the most, also disappointed expectations. Only 3.8% of the Moldovan diaspora actually cast their vote.

This sobering experience should serve as a wake up call for the ruling alliance. If its four leaders want to have a bargaining weight in the next legislature, personal ambitions should be set aside. Moldovan voters need to see that their democratic representatives can speak with the same voice. One thing is certain: the communist support base remains strong. With elections only a couple of months away, it is obvious that they will remain the biggest faction in the parliament. Yet Moldova cannot afford perpetual political uncertainty. The only way to overcome this political crisis is for the members of the future parliament to reach a consensus, elect a president, and bring stability to Moldova for the next four years. The alternative would be a cycle of never-ending parliamentary elections, which might make democracy less appealing to Moldovans.

Dinu Toderascu is a Program Officer with the German Marshall Fund’s Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation in Bucharest

Share/Bookmark

BUCHAREST — On Sunday, Sept. 5, Moldovans will go to the polls to participate in a Constitutional referendum that would allow for the president to be elected directly by the people, and not by the parliament as it is now. The need to change Article 78 of the Constitution was triggered by the failure twice of the Moldovan Parliament to elect the president (61 votes needed), mainly because the Communist Party refused to vote (they are the largest faction with 48 seats out of 101). In order to put an end to the year-long political crisis, the ruling Alliance for European Integration (AEI), comprising four liberal and democratic parties, decided to change the constitution so that the president is elected by a popular vote.

A recent survey shows that approximately 73% of Moldovans are ready to take part in this referendum, with 91% of respondents intending to vote in favor of changing the constitution. The referendum needs a 33% voter turnout to be validated, as per the recent legislative changes introduced by the parliament. The four ruling parties, including Prime Minister Vlad Filat’s Liberal Democratic Party and Acting President Mihai Ghimpu’s Liberal Party, are in favor of changing the constitution and are inviting voters to go to the polls. They rely on substantive support from Moldovans living abroad. In order to obtain that support, the ruling coalition increased the number of polling stations to include new locations that are outside of Moldovan embassies and successfully appealed to the Central Election Commission to allow voters with expired passports.

On the other hand, the opposition Communist Party led by former president Vladimir Voronin, along with a couple of small, left-oriented parties, are against the referendum and are inviting voters to boycott it.

If the referendum is a success, presidential elections would be held in the fall of 2010, most likely together with early parliamentary elections. The rumored date for both elections is November 14, but it hasn’t been announced officially. It is up to Acting President Mihai Ghimpu to make this date official, after which he must dissolve the parliament. Along with the current legislature, the current executive might also step down, acting as a temporary government until a new legislature is elected, which then should legitimize another, or the same, cabinet.

If the referendum is not validated, which is unlikely, the uncertainty of political situation in the country would continue. Most probably the parliament would not be dissolved until an agreement is reached with the Communist faction in order to change in the parliament the procedure of electing the president.

At the same time, it is clear that the ruling alliance will not have a common candidate for the presidential post. Prime Minster Vlad Filat and the Democratic Party Leader Marian Lupu are not hiding their presidential ambitions. Mihai Ghimpu also stated that his Liberal Party would field its own candidate for this post. Although Communist leader Voronin is not eligible to run for another presidential term, having held two consecutive terms, the Communist Party still has a strong support base (35%) and a communist nominee will certainly create competition for other candidates.

For more than a year now, the current government has made concrete and sound steps in starting, and gradually implementing, the necessary reforms to get Moldova closer to the European Union. The kind of support that the international partners are now offering Moldova is unprecedented, and this should continue. If this referendum needs to be successful in order for Moldova to obtain political stability, then so be it. The Moldovan people deserve a chance for a better life and a realistic perspective toward European integration.

Share/Bookmark