Moldova has been in crisis since its independence when the Soviet Union fell apart. It has a divided community between a larger part and a sliver that is controlled by a de facto state, known as Transdniestria or PMR. Moreover, the country faces serious internal socio-economic challenges that need a Government to act. It remains one of the poorest countries in Europe and is on the border of the European Union.
The country is now in political deadlock and without a proper Government, because of the failure of the Parliament to elect a new President. According to the Moldovan Constitution, the current President Vladimir Voronin has to stand down as he has served two terms in office.
In accordance with Electoral Law, the acting President Vladimir Voronin has now dismissed the Parliament that was elected by the Moldovan people on 5 April and has announced new Parliamentary Elections for 29 July. Indeed the deadlock in Moldova is over one seat. If the communist political party had won sixty-one seats instead of sixty the country would have had a new female President: the acting communist political party Prime Minister Ms Zenaida Greceanai.
The reason for this failure is the fact the Opposition members of Parliament do not want to have another communist political party Government. Some MPs insist that the April Elections were rigged and cite a dirty tricks campaign carried out by the communist political party. Following the Elections, there were riots and the Parliament and Presidential Administration buildings were vandalised.
Following the crisis in Chisinau, President Voronin demanded a recount in order to appease the opposition political parties. The ballot papers were soon recounted and the communist political party of Moldova has been re-elected for a second time. On 15 April, a recount took place: gave Moldova Noastra Alliance 9.77 per cent of the vote and entitled the group to eleven seats; the Liberal Party gained 13.13 per cent of the vote and fifteen seats; the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova gained 12.43 per cent and fifteen seats; the communist political party of Moldova gained 49.48 per cent and sixty seats.
The communist ruling political party led by Vladimir Voronin first came to power in 2001 and were re-elected in 2005. In the 2007 Moldovan local Elections the communist political party managed to only muster 34.18 per cent of the vote in comparison to the 2009 Parliamentary Elections where the party received 49.48 per cent. With this share of the vote the party has now achieved sixty seats in the Moldovan Parliament. This is better than the 2005 Elections when the party received 56 seats but not as good as in 2001 when the party received 71 seats.
It seems that really the communist political party should have rigged the Elections better to get that extra seat and save this entire political deadlock. Nevertheless, the present writer is certainly not encouraging Electoral fraud in Moldova.
In the 2009 Elections, the communist political party’s principal electoral promise was ‘modernization of the Republic of Moldova and its decisive transition from an economy based on agriculture and bureaucratic and nomenclature capitalism to a postindustrial society based on knowledge, competence, technology, high living standards and democratic culture’.
The amount of time/space given by media to the communist political party has been observed to have been greater than any other party. Opposition political party billboards were ripped down by people who wanted the ruling party to retain power. During the Election campaign there have been allegations that the police worked actively against the opposition political parties.
The authorities in Transdniestria do not always permit the population under its control to vote in the Moldovan Elections. Interestingly voters from the left bank of the River Dnestr in most cases were allowed to vote in these Elections. Although the OSCE Monitoring Mission reported that a large group of Transdniestrians blocked access to a polling station in Corjova. Nevertheless some who voted were concerned about the implications as some asked for their Identification not to be stamped. In other areas such as Ribnitza/Rezina, Transdniestrians appeared to have no difficulty in voting. Whether a deal had been made is interesting to speculate.
Moldova is the only country in the world that does not have a communist political system and consistently returns a communist political party. It cannot be argued that the success of the communist political party is down to Electoral Fraud; the support is not simply manufactured. Equally it is not just the old who are voting for this party. Not all elderly voters chose the communists. Support from younger voters is interesting as it shows that party is not simply coming to power because of an older generation’s nostalgia for the Soviet Union.
The opposition political parties are fairly weak and are principally based on personalities. The leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova Vladimir Filat allegedly has been involved in some controversial business dealings. However, his political party ran an anti-Voronin and anticommunist campaign. Mihai Ghimpu’s Liberal Party had the slogan ‘We Vote Together for a Better Life’ and advocating integration into the Euro-Atlantic Structures. All parties appear to share answers to Moldova’s troubles, however only the communist political party appears to overwhelmingly be the one that the Moldovans vote for.
On the whole, Moldovans appear to believe that the communist political party can fulfil its promises and increase living standards, reform the economy and deal with social security issues. This can also in part explain the Revolution’s failure as with so many abroad it can never be certain whether the opposition lost votes due to not enough ballot boxes abroad for overseas voters.
The challenge that the Moldovan Opposition faces is a political party that is popular and needs to persuade a general public why a vote for any of the opposition political parties is a good idea. It is a long road away from façade democracy where all the elements of a liberal democracy exist but there are still those who believe that it is in the interest of the people that they continue to destroy a voter’s freedom to information or at worse intimidate a voter into making a different choice. Furthermore, opposition political parties need educating to become more intellectual and responsible.
Throughout the Former Soviet Union region, there has become a rising incidence of protest or coloured Revolution. Special types of Revolution have taken place in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004) and Kyrgyzstan (2005). These Revolutions were respectively known as ‘Rose’, ‘Orange’ and ‘Tulip’. According to Yu Sharkov, writing in International Affairs (Moscow), Washington has a long term policy of staging “democratic revolutions” in the Former Soviet Union region. He claims that it is a central plank of US foreign policy.
It is also interesting to note that the Moldovan Authorities are now chasing some NGOs such as Amnesty International who complained about human rights violations for tax returns. Other countries such as Belarus and Kazakhstan have made laws restricting the activities of International NGOs as there is an idea that these organisations aid Revolution. This may well happen in Moldova. Many countries are worried about internet freedom. Indeed there might be more eavesdropping on internet chatrooms. During the crisis in Chisinau the internet was out of action, whether this was to stop further twitters coming to Chisinau or simply overuse.
In 1885, Engels wrote in a letter to Vera Zusulich, ‘People who boasted that they had made a revolution have always seen the next day that they had no idea what they were doing, that the revolution made did not in the least resemble the one they would have liked to have made’. The Moldovan Opposition ought to remember this that trying to attempt a Revolution is possible, but always for the revolutionist the future is not always Orange.
The question as to whether the Opposition can succeed in Moldova can be in part answered by examining other cases of successful Revolutions. There are a number of factors such as timing, which is crucial, as Andrew Wilson points out in his study of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution published in 2005. Rural voters could for once vote without fear and in ‘relative freedom’ as the harvests were in and payments received. However, the key factor appears to be whether the Opposition has in fact truly won and the population is behind political change. Anders Aslund noted when he was in Ukraine that there was no class divide and everyone wanted change. Henry E. Hale has carried out some significant research into explaining coloured Revolutions.
Returning to Engels, it seems that these Revolutions have not quite brought what anyone expected. The political change has brought perpetual political turmoil to Ukraine, a strange façade democracy to Georgia and certainly a worrying political system. The Moldovan Opposition ought to be responsible and forget what Putin, in 2004, described as ‘attempts to resolve legal issues by illegal means…It is the most dangerous to think up a system of permanent revolutions [in the post-Soviet space]’.
The Opposition political parties must unite not in protest but in negotiation. It is time that Moldova is put first rather than petty political party distinctions. Moldova has a number of challenges to be faced and needs a new Parliament, President, Government and forward thinking Opposition. Whether training and education can be organised by NGOs within Moldova, the West must remember the danger of interference in another country’s politics. Intervention can lead to accusation that the intervening country is trying to create revolutionary political change.
