The New Way of Transition in Moldova: Which Path Would it Take?
Results of Moldova's parliamentary elections on 5 April 2009 led to the confrontation between the governing authorities in Moldova, represented solely by the Communist Party of Moldova, and the population of the country. The first protests in Moldova, which took place on 7 April 2009 were, according to the opposition leaders and civil society, spontaneous and violent, and were not organized or led by the opposition. By the end of the day on 7 April 2009, 295 people were arrested, among which one person died allegedly due to severe beating by the police. On 8 April 2009 the civil society of Moldova issued a declaration on the 2009 Coalition of NGOs, which was promptly signed and sent out to civil society organizations in the European Union and neighbouring countries. The opposition leaders called for conciliatory forms of protests and the Leader of Liberal Party and Mayor of Moldova signed the permission to hold peaceful demonstrations in Chisinau between April 10 through April 29, which were supposed to keep demonstrators in designed areas and only until 9 pm.
The post-election unrest was accompanied by jeopardy of free press and stigmatization of Romania and Romanian journalists by the state authorities. Some journalists were expelled from the country, others prevented from coming to the country by the security forces of Moldova. Moldovan professional organizations of journalists and co-operation with Journalists Without Borders swiftly issued their declarations appealing to the authorities of Moldova to stop harassment and intimidation of journalists.
Under the pressure of the mass protests the Constitutional Court of Moldova made a decision to re-count ballots and obliged the Central Election Commission to conduct the recount on 15 April 2009. The opposition hopes that the re-count would prevent Communists from claiming the majority in the newly elected parliament, which in its turn will prevent the repetition of Russia's presidential power transfer scenario: Vladimir Voronin, as a leader of the Communist Party, nominates his successor, a future president of Moldova and secures a Speaker position for himself. Such scenario would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the authorities in the country and will be a step back in the process of the country's democratization.
The current issue at stake in Moldova is not finding guilty ones in the political unrest in Chisinau on 7 April 2009 but finding a peaceful and legitimate way to resolve the post-election crises and to avoid escalation of violence and suppression of fundamental freedoms and human rights in the country. The incumbent Moldovan leadership shall prove its commitment to the Copenhagen criteria and start a pragmatic negotiation with the opposition, ensure the right to fair trial for those arrested on 7 April 2009 and stop harassing media and civil society, as well as stigmatizing Romania and Serbia. Further, the current post-election events in Moldova shall motivate the international democracy providers' community to evaluate their strategy and examine why the election process in Moldova took a violent turn.
The recent events in Moldova proved the existence of the vibrant civil society, which promptly responded to events in Moldova by issuing their public statements and declarations. The opposition leaders were able to join their efforts to represent a united position regarding alleged abuses of the election law by the ruling Communist Party, however they lack the unity in their vision on how to proceed with the election dispute resolution. They were not able to present any legally valid evidence of violations which took place during the election campaign and copies of protocols from the polling stations on the Election Day to verify the authenticity of election protocols. The lack of legally valid evidence precludes judicial involvement in election dispute settlement and brings it to the political plane. The judicial review exercised by the Constitutional Court of Moldova was a manifestation of dealing with contentious moral and political issues of the election process in Moldova. Resolving election disputes in the political plane turns the ability and willingness of the ruling Communist party and the opposition to negotiating a mutually acceptable agreement into the key factors in finding a lasting peaceful solution.
Though some people want to see the resemblance of the situation in Moldova with the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, unfortunately, it is more wishful thinking than fact. The re-run in Ukraine was upheld by the Supreme Court of Ukraine based on numerous pieces of evidence of election fraud from polling stations all around Ukraine. The evidence consisted of protocols, prepared by political party observers at polling stations on Election Day, which were promptly wired to political party head-quarters or processed by election lawyers in the field. This active application of legal mechanisms by election contenders in Ukraine preceded the following:
- changes to the election legislation and corresponding administrative and criminal procedure codes, which allowed investigation and adjudication of election disputes;
- nation-wide training of election commissions of all levels on how to apply election law and how to enforce it;
- training of political party and civil society observers on election law, collecting evidence of election law fraud and filing complaints to courts;
- training of judges on how to apply election law in Ukraine and how to resolve election disputes.
Unfortunately, none of the above steps were undertaken in Moldova. Moreover, the EU democracy assistance to political society or parliament in Moldova was non-existent, unlike the EU assistance to civil society. This factor might be of significant importance when speculating about a more advanced cooperation and better preparedness of civil society members compared to political society to the current political crises in Moldova. But we will get back to the EU democracy and electoral assistance later.
The irregularities of voters' lists in Ukraine were dealt with before the Election Day and not after the election, while the opposition parties in Moldova only raised the issue of accuracy of voters' lists and a demand to review them only after elections. The political parties in Ukraine took a pro-active rather than reactive approach, and being armed with the election law, which made adjudicating election disputes possible, the opposition in Ukraine was able to get much better results than the opposition in Moldova. But it is also important to mention here that the duration of an election campaign in Ukraine is 180 days while in Moldova it is only 60 days, which seriously undermines possibilities of investigation of alleged election violations and adjudication of election abuses in court during the campaign.
The Central Election Commission of Moldova played the sole role in overseeing the adherence of all participants in the election race in Moldova to the election law. The CEC's monopolized role in overseeing compliance with election law, as well as the alleged control of the ruling Communist party over this body, undermines its credibility. There were no amendments to election legislation made prior to elections to allow the judiciary involvement.
Electoral assistance in Moldova was focused mainly on assisting civil society coalitions with observing elections, rather than assisting competing political parties in training election observers on documenting election violations. Though nobody questions the importance of civil overseeing of elections, their declarations have a limited effect on finding facts and getting judiciary involved in political processes, such as elections. Furthermore, the hasty announcement of elections as free and fair in Moldova by some international observers undermined the value of civil society observers' declarations about election irregularities and made the government of Moldova reluctant to negotiate possible political solutions to the current post-election conflict. It might be desirable, therefore, to review the current election assistance strategy in Moldova and substitute it with a strategy which goes beyond the immediate pre-electoral assistance and unfolds the longer-term electoral system capacity development activities to promote sustainability of the Electoral Administration and enable electoral stakeholders to work independently and effectively in future. Therefore, the objective should be to promote sustainability of the Electoral Administration and ensure that democratic institutions have long-term capacity for effective operation.
Further, the lack of coordination between the opposition parties and the population of Moldova at the early stage of the post-election crises, which contributed to unnecessary violence and even the death of one of the protestors, indicates the need to intensify the grass-roots work of political parties in Moldova, their involvement in work with the youth and better understanding of the role of political parties and their place in society. The lack of appeal to legal mechanisms in resolving election disputes indicates the need for introducing such mechanisms to the election framework of Moldova and training of political parties on how to apply them. Unfortunately, the current post-election crises in Moldova took the opposition leaders by surprise and their lack of preparedness might cause the loss of momentum and undermine the oppositions' credibility in the eyes of the electorate of Moldova.
The above observations of the problems of democracy assistance in Moldova correspond with the conclusions of the Conference on European Democracy Assistance held in Prague in March 2009. The participants of the above conference called for, among other things, a more holistic approach, interlinking of development cooperation and democracy assistance, more analysis of the political situation in target countries, and involvement of other stakeholders in assessment and implementations such as civil society organizations and political parties. Moreover, they stressed the need for more cooperation and coordination between Member States of the EU; the EU and USAID; the EU and UNDP on promoting democracy in order to produce a critical mass in building democratic institutions and financing long-term projects. Regarding the electoral assistance the conference stressed the necessity of focusing on building capacity of local election administration bodies, rather than financing international election observation missions in target countries. The effective EU democracy assistance, as Moldova's case proves, requires inclusion of civil and political society as beneficiaries to democracy assistance programmes and the EU partners in building democracy outside the EU, as well as the improved coherent intellectual framework on democracy assistance and democratic governance.
Moldova is a country that participates in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) project of the European Union. Promotion of human rights and rule of law has been reported to form the "core" of the policy of the Eastern Partnership. The EaP states that: "Shared values including democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights will be at its core, as well as the principles of market economy, sustainable development and good governance." The Partnership is to provide the foundation for new Association Agreements between the EU and those partners who have made sufficient progress towards the principles and values mentioned. Apart from values, the declaration says the region is of "strategic importance" and the EU has an "interest in developing an increasingly close relationship with its Eastern partners."
Currently, the EU institutions should not consider any political or legal actions against the Moldovan government, but use its "soft power" to motivate political leaders in Moldova to adhere to open and transparent political competition, to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Moreover, the EU should offer its assistance in conducting negotiations between the ruling authorities and the opposition, and encourage the involvement of civil society in Moldova as an independent observer of the process in order to increase its credibility. The EU institutions should further encourage development of partnership relations with civil society of countries in the Eastern Partnership in order to strengthen their capacity to monitor government's activity and to prevent slipping back to an authoritarian regime.
Moldova's case will be at the centre of discussion in early May in Prague at the conference on Eastern Partnership: Towards Civil Society Forum, which will take place on the eve of the Eastern Partnership Summit. This conference is a civil society from all EU countries and six EaP countries, co-organized among others by the European Partnership for Democracy. The main purpose of the conference is to highlight the expected benefits of the EaP for both the EU and partners involved and to acknowledge a potential of civil society in enhancing the EaP. Civil society in Moldova with its numerous appeals to the EU institutions, and its pro-active role in election observation demonstrates its growing role in building relations with the European Union member countries and overseeing its government's internal and external policies.
Degradation of political regime continues in Moldova (by PASOS)
Following our Statement on the Political Crisis in Moldova (10 April 2009), new signs have emerged indicating a severe political deterioration in the country, in particular the increasingly anti-democratic nature of the political regime in Moldova. The government authorities are now impeding the work of independent civil society and independent media at a time when independent voices are essential to witness and investigate human rights abuses carried out by the police authorities cine the elections of 5 April 2009. Please read the statement made by PASOS to the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the Czech Government, Presidency of the Council of the European Union. More reports on Moldova.