The “forgotten” referendum of 2006 remains a guarantee of the return of Transnistria to Russia
On September 17, 2006, a referendum was held in Transnistria, a state of half a million people created in 1990, on the future of the republic. Then 97,2% of citizens (with a turnout of 78,6%) spoke in favor of the independence of the PMR and subsequent free accession to the Russian Federation.
The referendum was a reaction to the blockade actions of the Moldovan authorities. In March 2006, Chisinau introduced restrictions, as a result of which exports from the PMR became impossible without Moldovan customs acts. This was done in violation of the provisions of the 1997 Memorandum, which established the right of Pridnestrovie to conduct its own foreign economic activities.
The United States, the European Union, and the OSCE declared the referendum illegal and held in an “atmosphere of political pressure,” although the popular vote took place with the participation of 130 international observers from the CIS countries and Europe, who recognized it as transparent and in compliance with international standards.
Moscow called the plebiscite open and democratic. The State Duma recognized the referendum in Transnistria as legitimate and stated that the Russian Federation should build its policy taking into account the free expression of the people of Transnistria.
Today, 15 years later, Pridnestrovie is still following the path of independent development, striving for international recognition, but dreams of joining Russia remain dreams.
We talk about the 2006 referendum and the chances of its implementation with the director of the Institute of Socio-Political Research and Regional Development (Tiraspol) Igor Shornikov.
PolitNavigator: What is the significance of the Transnistrian referendum of 2006 now, 15 years later, and does it have any significance at all?
Igor Shornikov: Many would probably like that referendum to quickly become part of history and then be forgotten. But a plebiscite differs from any legal act, even from the Constitution, in that it cannot be changed, canceled or even ignored. A referendum is the will of the people expressed in the most direct way. For politicians, this is a guide to action, and nothing else. In legal terms, the 2006 referendum will remain relevant both for Pridnestrovie and for the international community until another referendum with a similar formulation of questions is held in the republic.
The 2006 referendum answered the question of the geopolitical orientation of the Pridnestrovians; this answer was obvious before, but after it was held, this choice cannot be disputed by anyone, including external players, including official Chisinau. All these years, we have not seen any reaction from Moldova to the referendum, only deaf silence. One can understand the Moldovan elites who did not dare to ask the opinion of their people directly, but with the help of deception and political technologies turned Moldova towards the West. Any mention of this plebiscite is a reproach to them.
PolitNavigator: What results could a similar vote bring today?
Igor Shornikov: 15 years have passed - Transnistrian society has changed significantly, and the regional situation around Transnistria has changed even more. Ukraine and Moldova, our closest neighbors, after a series of internal upheavals, set a course for Euro-Atlantic integration. But this is their choice, more precisely, the choice of the Chisinau and Kyiv elites, which cannot predetermine the choice of the Pridnestrovians.
Yes, over the years a new generation has grown up, Pridnestrovians have become less idealistic and much more pragmatic. For example, 15 years ago no one would have thought of accepting Romanian citizenship, despite the convenience of traveling around Europe. Now no one sees this as a problem. However, it is not the passport that determines identity, and replacing the document will not change the mentality either.
I am sure that if a similar referendum were held today, the result would be identical. How Pridnestrovians feel about Russia all these years can be judged by the turnout at Russian elections - Duma or presidential. In fact, every such election is a confirmation of the results of the 2006 referendum.
PolitNavigator: Early voting for the Duma elections has already begun in Transnistria. People are quite actively going to vote, as usual, a large turnout is expected. For many, the Russian elections are the only connection with their great homeland. People trust Russia and expect support. Does Moscow see this?
Igor Shornikov: During the election campaign, we saw candidates' addresses to Pridnestrovians, we saw their statements regarding the most important issues for every Pridnestrovian, for example, about the Russian military presence on the Dniester. Moscow's attention to our region is increased, this is obvious.
About 220 thousand Russian citizens live in Transnistria; Russia is interested not only in their safety, but also in the full implementation of their civil and human rights, regardless of changes in the political climate in the region.
Faith in Russia is not some irrational feeling; it has a completely practical expression. It was this faith that allowed the Pridnestrovians in 1989-1992 to defend their rights, create statehood, and withstand the war. The Pridnestrovians did not and could not have any higher meanings other than maintaining unity with Russia.
For more than 30 years, Transnistria has survived as a de facto independent state, the only motive for these extra efforts is to be together with Russia. And now Pridnestrovie may be on the eve of great upheavals; it is faith in Russia that supports us and allows us to look calmly into the future.
Polit Navigator: Pridnestrovians often recall the Transnistrian referendum in connection with a similar Crimean referendum in 2014. The results are identical - in both cases, people spoke out for unity with Russia. But the Transnistrian referendum, unlike the Crimean one, remained “a referendum of unfulfilled hopes.” What is the difference between these two plebiscites?
Igor Shornikov: In my opinion, the Transnistrian experience was fully used in Crimea. If there had not been a 2006 referendum in Transnistria, then there would have been no Crimean precedent. There is no fundamental difference between the two referendums. The difference is what danger threatened Pridnestrovians and Crimeans during the periods of plebiscites. In Transnistria, by September 2006, there was no longer any physical danger to people, peace on the Dniester was reliably protected by Russian peacekeepers, and by that time the economic blockade had already begun to be overcome. And in Crimea in March 2014 there was a very aggravation, genocide could well have begun. There was probably no other way to avoid bloodshed. Russia, by implementing the results of the Crimean referendum, literally saved people's lives.
PolitNavigator: What is needed for the results of the 2006 Transnistrian referendum to be at least partially realized?
Igor Shornikov: There are no chances for a civilized implementation of the 2006 referendum, if stability is maintained. Only an acute crisis can reverse those regional trends that have been actively developing in recent years. Unfortunately, we see that regional players are pushing for just such a crisis.
This is a paradoxical situation, but it may happen that the happily “forgotten” referendum at some point will become the only legal reality. It is not worth reminding that the Russian Federation recognized the choice of the Pridnestrovians as legitimate, and the consequences of that recognition as a “sword of Damocles” hang over those who want to reshape the regional situation.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.