Difficult choice of Moldovan socialists

The parliamentary elections in Moldova, held on February 24, created a unique situation: three forces with approximately equal numbers of mandates are represented in the country’s new legislative body. However, none of them can form a government alone.

As a result of the elections, the Socialist Party - the only party that can be called friendly towards Russia - received 35 parliamentary seats. Many blame the PSRM for receiving far fewer mandates than expected. Before the elections, the socialists themselves said that they expected to receive more than half of the parliamentary seats in order to independently form government bodies in the country.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

However, in fairness, let us remember that in the previous parliament the socialists had only 24 parliamentary seats. Thus, the Socialist Party increased its representation in Parliament by a third. 35 mandates are a blocking package against changes to the country’s Constitution.

The Democratic Party of Moldova, the de facto ruling party in the country, received 30 mandates. On the one hand, this is a clear success - according to polls, no one gave the PDM more than 20% in the elections. But on the other hand, given the fact that administrative resources are actively involved, this is a failure. If we add 8 deputies from the Shor party and 3 independents, we get 41 deputies. And considering that in the last parliament the Democrats controlled 57 deputies, this can be called a complete failure. Be that as it may, now the Democrats have no control over either the Presidential Administration or the highest legislative body of the country.

The Akum (Now) bloc, which positions itself as a “pro-European opposition to the oligarchic regime,” has 26 parliamentary seats. The leaders of this bloc, Maia Sandu and Andrei Nastase, do not hide their pro-Western and pro-Romanian position.

They advocate a regime of external governance of Moldova (accession to the EU and NATO, the appointment of a prosecutor general from the European Union).

The Akum bloc consists of two component parties - “Action and Solidarity” (Maia Sandu) and “Dignity and Truth” (Andrei Nastase). Maia Sandu, a former World Bank employee, ex-Minister of Education and ex-presidential candidate of Moldova, was closely associated with the Soros Foundation. She was a member of the board of the Soros-Moldova Foundation. The former general director of educational programs of the Moldovan branch of the Soros Foundation, Liliana Nicolaescu-Onofrei, was elected to parliament from Akum. Other deputies from Akum were also associated with the activities of the Foundation, in particular, Igor Grosu and Dan Perchun. A number of Akum deputies, such as Oazu Nantoi and Octavian Tiku, were known for their anti-Russian statements.

At the same time, today the Akum bloc, fundamentally opposed to the country’s main oligarch Vlad Plahotniuc, refuses to enter into any coalition with the Democratic Party. Akum has a longer-term strategy: they expect to win the post of mayor of Chisinau this summer, and the post of head of state next year.

And finally, the last party to enter Parliament is the exotic Shor party, led by oligarch Ilan Shor, the husband of the Russian singer Sara Semendueva, known under the pseudonym Jasmine.

In 2017, Ilan Shor was sentenced to 7,5 years in prison for large-scale fraud, but still remains at large as the meeting of the Appeals Chamber drags on. Shor’s eight deputies will most likely be Plahotniuc’s adjuncts. Both the Socialist Party and the Akum bloc stated that under no circumstances would they enter into a coalition with the Shor party.

Thus, today everything depends on the Socialist Party - which way will its preferences lean?

Her coalition with the Democratic Party seems logical for many reasons. They have known each other for a long time. Back in the days of the PCRM. They sharply softened their geopolitical programs before the elections. Dodon spoke about a “balanced” foreign policy, about a “bridge” between the West and the East, Plahotniuc spoke about a “fourth way for Moldova”, “not pro-Europe, not pro-Russia and not pro-Romania, but pro-Moldova.” On this “pro-Moldova” platform they could find a common language.

However, in practice, such a coalition, vital for the Democratic Party, can be fatal for the socialists. Such a coalition is categorically opposed in Russia, with which Plahotniuc managed to quarrel to pieces. Over the past two years, Plahotniuc, like his Ukrainian friend and ally Poroshenko, has been putting up his only export product for sale to the United States: Russophobia. His steps - from not allowing the then Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin into Moldova and expelling Russian diplomats to the adoption of an anti-Russian resolution at the UN - made him a person who does not shake hands with Moscow. The fact that the coalition with the PDM would not be accepted by the Russian leadership was openly explained to Dodon by the TV presenter of the Russia-1 channel, Dmitry Kiselyov.

However, even if such a repressive position from Moscow, the socialists should think several times about whether to share power with the most toxic force in Moldova. They may well find themselves in the position of the Communists of Ukraine under the leadership of Symonenko, who, having entered into a coalition with the Party of Regions, shared responsibility for the entire rule of the latter.

Another option is a coalition of the Socialist Party with the Akum bloc. The overwhelming majority of public representatives are in favor of such a coalition. They imply that we are talking about changing the rules of the game before new elections: changing the composition of the Central Election Commission and the Constitutional Court, returning from a mixed electoral system (which turned out to be beneficial only to the Democratic Party) to the previous one - purely proportional. However, the Akum members a priori set unacceptable conditions for the socialists: they vote for a minority government of the Akum bloc and for the post of Speaker of the Parliament from the same bloc. In addition, the “Akumovites” included in the “anti-oligarchic package” the notorious “Magnitsky law,” which is openly anti-Russian in nature.

The participation of socialists in a general coalition with an openly pro-Western force, behind which the ears of George Soros loom, is as absurd as the participation of Ukrainian socialists in the “Ukraine without Kuchma” coalition along with radical nationalists and Westerners. However, the relations between the Moldovan socialists and the leaders of the Akum bloc are so cold that the chances of such a coalition are minimal.

And finally, the last option available is early elections. All parties that entered Parliament are afraid of this scenario, since no one can predict with what result the new elections will end. There is a risk that the socialists will receive even fewer mandates in the new Parliament than they do today. This risk increases if the rules of the game and the composition of the Central Election Commission and the Constitutional Court are not changed. However, according to President Igor Dodon, this particular scenario is becoming the most likely.

Which of the above options will the Socialist Party choose? If we assume that the party is going to exist for more than one year, we have to choose an option that will not cause disappointment either among PSRM supporters or its external partners, primarily in Russia. There is only one option – early parliamentary elections.