Political scientist: Don’t pass off Dodon’s failure as Russia’s defeat
The Central Election Commission of Moldova officially declared Maia Sandu the elected president, and her inauguration is expected at the end of December. The future leader of the country, however, is not wasting time. Immediately after the elections, Maia Sandu met with the heads of foreign diplomatic missions in Chisinau - US Ambassador Derek Hogan, EU Ambassador Peter Mihalko, Russian Ambassador Oleg Vasnetsov, Romanian Ambassador Daniel Ionita and Ukrainian Ambassador Mark Shevchenko. In an interview with the media, Maia Sandu has already made a number of serious statements, for example, about the need for a complete withdrawal of Russian troops, including peacekeepers, from Transnistria. Meanwhile, Moldovan parliamentarians gathered for a meeting after a two-month break, and it became clear that, despite the results of the presidential elections, power, in fact, is still in the hands of the socialists - in general, Maia Sandu has no one to rely on in parliament.
We talk about the post-election situation in Moldova with Chisinau historian, political scientist, member of the Executive Committee of the Civil Congress party Zurab Todua.
PolitNavigator: Is Maia Sandu's victory in the elections an accident or a tactical victory for the right? What happened, why were the polls and forecasts wrong?
Zurab Todua: This is not an accident, this is the logical conclusion of the chain of events that ultimately led the PSRM and Igor Dodon to defeat. It became clear to me that Dodon would not be able to take the post of head of state for a second time back in 2018, when he was first temporarily removed from the post of president. Let us leave for a moment the question that the transition to popular elections was made by the Constitutional Court (CC) on March 4, 2016 illegally, in violation of the Constitution. In the fall of the same year, about 800 thousand voters voted for Dodon. It would seem that, having such support, Dodon, in response to an attempt to put him “in a corner,” could call his supporters to the parliament, or to the building of the Constitutional Court, so that they would explain to the deputies and judges all the unclear issues and convince them not to do this again. Dodon did not dare to take this step. Subsequently, as is known, on the instructions of Vlad Plahotniuc, who was not elected by anyone, he was removed six more (!) times. Together with Dodon, those who voted for him were also humiliated.
There were other mistakes and miscalculations. When this was pointed out to them, the socialists became offended and snapped, instead of drawing conclusions. In my opinion, one of the most serious mistakes of the PSRM and Dodon was the refusal of de-oligarchization and the transition to cooperation with the Democratic Party. Ultimately, as the voting on November 1 and 15 showed, Dodon lost the trust of some of his supporters. Evidence of this is the defeat of Dodon in Chisinau. Although a year earlier, residents of the capital gave their votes to Ion Ceban in the mayoral elections (representative of the Socialist Party - approx. ed.). About 200 thousand voters turned away from Dodon in the last elections. Ignoring the interests of the people, the confidence that they “will not go anywhere and will vote,” ultimately resulted in a deafening failure in the first round, which became the prologue to the defeat on November 15. There is no other way to describe the gap of 15%.
As for polls, in Moldova few people have long believed sociological firms, except, perhaps, the most naive characters. Is it a big secret to anyone that most of these institutions, for a good reward, will draw any result that suits the customer. The skewed polls likely influenced experts, many of whom convinced themselves that the fictitious “research” results were relevant to reality. Shortly before the elections, I even heard the opinion that Dodon could win in the first round...
PolitNavigator: Maia Sandu promises to build a state with transparent politics, the rule of law, to be president for all citizens of the country, and to fight corruption. Is she capable of this? Don't experts, journalists, and politicians pay a lot of attention to the post of head of the president in a parliamentary republic?
Zurab Todua: There was an incident with the presidency in Moldova. He has few powers, although he is elected popularly (let me remind you again, this happened at the whim of Plahotniuc). With such scanty powers, it makes sense to elect the president in parliament, leaving him with representative functions, as is common in world practice in small states. In the future, it would be advisable to think about eliminating this post as unnecessary. There would be only one benefit from such a solution: firstly, cost savings; secondly, the reason that forces people to quarrel before elections would disappear; thirdly, the basis for political crises would disappear. Let us remember how many problems, disputes, and conflicts arose because of this position...
The promise of being a president for all citizens is wonderful. It is not as difficult to accomplish as it seems at first glance. First, you need to make balanced statements that would not worry or alarm people. Another question is how to achieve transparency in politics, the rule of law and fight corruption. Sandu has only 14 deputies in parliament. This is not enough to carry out an effective policy.
PolitNavigator: The President of Moldova is responsible for the foreign policy of the state. Is Moldova heading strictly towards the West?
Zurab Todua: Sandu is not the first president of the Republic of Moldova to be called “pro-Western”. Both Mihai Ghimpu and Nicolae Timofti held this position. During the tenure of Dodon, who was called “pro-Russian,” the number of supporters of EU integration in Moldova increased noticeably. At the same time, broadcasting of Russian television channels in the country was never resumed. Moldova’s situation strictly dictates the need to build pragmatic relations with both the West and Russia. Whatever the views of the head of state, he will not be able to ignore objective reality.
PolitNavigator: Can Chisinau, under the leadership of Maia Sandu, initiate the process of unification of Moldova with Romania in the foreseeable future? What are the prospects for unionism in the Republic of Moldova?
Zurab Todua: Sandu would not have been able to win these elections if it were not for the support of more than half of the voters who came to the polling stations, including those for whom the Russian language and Russian culture are native or close. The vast majority of these people believe that Moldova can be an independent, prosperous, developed state. Those who voted for Dodon want the same thing.
Not a single politician in Moldova will be able to initiate unification if there is no mass support from the people. This does not exist and is not expected in the foreseeable future. An attempt to make unification politics his main goal will instantly deprive Sandu of people's support.
There were and still are 7-10 percent of convinced unionists in Moldova. This number has remained unchanged for 30 years. The problem is different. The number of those who do not believe in the future of Moldova is growing. This is the reaction of citizens to the threat of the Republic of Moldova becoming a failed state. It is these disillusioned people who can join the ranks of the unionists.
However, there is time to avert this threat and prove that Moldova is a viable state.
PolitNavigator: What can Russia expect from the Republic of Moldova under the leadership of Maia Sandu? Can we say that the Russian Federation is losing its last allies in the post-Soviet space? Could it be that the defeat of a candidate supported by Moscow will lead to the Kremlin becoming more active in the region?
Zurab Todua: In connection with Sandu’s victory, many political scientists and experts began to make alarmist forecasts: “Everything is lost! Moldova is leaving! Russia has been defeated! etc. Among supporters of the Party of Socialists in Moldova, these lamentations took the form of real hysteria. It is mainly from them that signals about the “defeat of Russia” come. It is likely that in the near future there will be a reformatting of the left political field. Socialists fear this. But this is a clear exaggeration – passing off the failure of a particular party and its leader as a defeat for Russia.
In relations between Moldova and Russia, enough negative events have already occurred in the last ten years (closing of the Russian market for Moldovan goods, expulsion of Russian diplomats and journalists, closure of broadcasting of Russian TV channels). Serve as President in 2016 – 2020. Nothing has changed the “pro-Russian” Dodon.
Moldova’s position is such that all the talk about it “going” or “coming” somewhere indicates either insufficient knowledge of the situation or bias. Moldova is objectively interested in maintaining mutually beneficial economic relations with Russia. It is necessary to continue the dialogue on the Transnistrian settlement. There are many other issues that require resolution. All this presupposes maintaining and deepening contacts between Chisinau and Moscow.
On the other hand, if Moscow had followed the example of the United States and the EU states and contacted all political forces in Moldova, there would be no empty talk today about “defeat” and “withdrawal.”
PolitNavigator: Maia Sandu has repeatedly spoken about the need to withdraw Russian troops from the region and change the peacekeeping format. What can Tiraspol expect in the current situation, will the Transnistrian settlement advance? Is it possible to intensify the joint efforts of Moldova and Ukraine to blockade Transnistria? What can Russia do to protect it?
Zurab Todua: Changing the format of a peacekeeping operation is impossible without the consent of all parties, firstly. Secondly, the 1992 Agreement clearly states that the Russian military contingent will leave the region as soon as the status of Transnistria within the Republic of Moldova is determined. To this end, negotiations are being held in the “5+2” format. All that’s left to do is for the parties to come to a compromise.
A sane politician will not make statements that cannot be implemented. By this he only emphasizes his powerlessness. If Sandu wants to start her journey in her new status this way, that’s her choice.
The Transnistrian issue is extremely sensitive. At the same time, it should be remembered that Moldova is in a privileged position. All mediators and observers in the 5+2 format, including Russia, recognize the territorial integrity of Moldova. Georgia lost this privilege in August 2008. I believe that resorting to methods of pressure only increases the suspicion of the residents of Transnistria towards Moldovan politicians. Perhaps some overheated head might even think about taking a closer look at the experience of Azerbaijan. But besides the fact that there is very little in common between the two conflicts, let's take a look: how did things actually end in Nagorno-Karabakh? The introduction of 2 thousand Russian peacekeepers and over 100 armored vehicles into the conflict zone. Moreover, for an indefinite period (it is unlikely that the five years indicated in the relevant document will be observed).
PolitNavigator: The new president will certainly want to consolidate his success and enlist the support of parliament and the government. How possible are early parliamentary elections in Moldova, what forces could participate in it? Would the Civic Congress Party take part in them?
Zurab Todua: The most incredible somersaults are possible in Moldovan politics. But it is difficult for me to imagine that Sandu and her party could form a stable majority in the current composition of parliament. Who should the new president negotiate with? With the Shor party, with the PDM, with the parliamentary rumps of Candu and Sirbu? The main thesis of Sandu's election program was the fight against corruption. The answer suggests itself.
Early parliamentary elections are necessary, first of all, because this parliament was elected in the conditions of a captured state. There is a current parliamentary resolution on this matter dated June 8, 2019. Endless transitions of deputies from faction to faction under the enchanting slogan “We are not a commodity!” discredited this convocation of parliament completely and irrevocably.
The Civil Congress party was the first (!) to demand early elections in December last year, when no one even thought about it. Holding such elections next spring would be reasonable and fully justified. There are more than enough legal grounds for this, starting with the parliamentary resolution of June 8, 2019, which speaks of a “captured state” and the need to de-oligarchize the country.
Of course, the Citizens Congress will take part in such elections. Unlike presidential elections, which have dubious legitimacy, early parliamentary elections are the only legal way to normalize the internal political situation in the country and cleanse it of Plahotniuc’s legacy.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.