Moldovan elections 2019
A new “idea” to get rid of the governing oligarch,
Vladimir Plahotniuc, is flawed – there are simpler ways.
Instead this idea looks like a kompromat construct.
By Vlad
Lupan,
February
23, 2019
Moldovan Parliamentary elections will take
place tomorrow, February 24, 2019. The battle is mainly taking place between three
actors - the governing Democratic Party led by Vladimir Plahotniuc, the Party
of Socialists, previously led by the current Moldovan President, Igor Dodon, and
the ACUM (“Now”) Block jointly led by the previous reformist Education Minister,
Maia Sandu, and a former prosecutor and lawyer, Andrei Nastase. According to,
what I believe to be the least susceptible to internal meddling, IRI opinion
poll, conducted in December 2018 - January 2019 by Gallup and local Magenta
Consulting polling, these are the three parties to certainly enter the
parliament, with perhaps one more addition of Sor Party (read from here further Shor), led by the controversial businessman
involved in the theft of $1bln from the Moldovan banking system.[i]
Moldovan observers consider that the
currently governing Democrats share an uneasy coalition with the pro-Russian
socialists, which is called “Binom”, while Transparency International called a power-sharing
arrangement.[ii]
I previously suggested that this arrangement has a “good cop-bad cop”[iii] play in it, for the
distribution of spheres of influences between these two political players to
win the support of the West and East alike. Mr. Dodon Socialists nominally
oppose the Democrats and consult with President Putin, while the Democrats sometimes
expel Russian military and propaganda media. ACUM block at one moment participated
together with Mr. Dodon in protests against the Democrats, whom they believe to
be corrupt, and also are at odds with Mr. Dodon over Russian influence in Moldova.
The most recent idea appeared in a Russian
language media outlet, is that after elections Dodon’s Socialists and ACUM center-right
pro-EU/US should unite and oust corrupt Plahotniuc’s party from the governing positions,
and then organize clean elections. This line of argument is substantially flawed,
as we will show later, after a short backgrounder.
Basic
background
Mr. Shor’s party grew up
from “Ravnopravie” movement, which previously advocated for union with Russia[iv], while now only continues
to maintain a center-left, socially oriented program.[v] Yet this party is seemingly
a member of the Alliance of Conservatives and
Reformists in Europe (ACRE) - Mr. Shor, convicted in the first level court for his
involvement in the banking fraud, continues to run in elections, and managed to
register two European MPs outside the joint European Parliament election observation
effort, where ACRE is present.[vi]
This generated a rebuttal from MEPs, stating that theirs is the only European
Parliament observation mission officially registered for these elections.[vii]
Mr. Plahotniuc is also known as the former major
contributor to the Communist Party finances up to 2009.[viii] And although Russia and
its Interior Ministry identified him as a Russian citizen and one of the
perpetrators of the Russian Laundromat[ix], which leads me to believe
that they want to help Mr. Dodon in current elections – such an involvement,
with his relative, the current Spekaer of thee Palriament, Mr. Candu, was actually
reported by the RISE-Moldova investigative journalism group that exposed the
Russian Laundromat and other schemes[x]. RISE-Moldova is a reputable
institution. Hence, the electoral context is exposing an actual situation.
In his turn, Mr. Dodon’s Socialists finances do not seem to be in order as well,
according to the same RISE-Moldova.[xi] Mr. Dodon returned from
his recent trip to Moscow with a Gazprom flight.[xii] Though, to my knowledge,
nobody put an official request, such a trip provided by a foreign company
linked to a Government, amounts to passive corruption at least and is against
Moldovan legislation. He also recently launched a renewed version of the originally
Russian drafted Kozak plan that would plant Moldova firmly into the Russian
World/Russki Mir.[xiii]
His office denied the veracity of the document, suggesting another set of
document would be provided after elections.
ACUM
block
– an anti-corruption, pro-democracy, hence pro-European and Pro-Western block,
is formed by two younger persons. Maia Sandu and Andrei Nasase, with limited
previous political experience.
-
The
main criticism directed towards Maia
Sandu is for her membership in the Alliance for European Integration Government
and the failure to object in the governmental sessions (in a Government led by
the Liberal-Democrats, with the participation of the Democrats and Liberals), to
the $1bln theft and the sale of the Moldovan Airport to what initially turned out
to be an ex-KGB operative, who later transferred the business to Mr. Shor (see
above for Shor Party). Ms. Sandu was the Minister of Education in that coalition
Government.[xiv]
-
The
other ACUM leader is Andrei Nastase.
He is criticized for receiving money from off-shore accounts, possibly linked
to two Moldovan businessmen, both with the same family name Topa (unrelated,
yet partners), involved in a long-term business battle with Mr. Plahotniuc. They
were convicted of blackmail and money laundering by the Moldovan justice system,
often reported to be politically influenced and flew to Germany. Mr. Plahtoniuc
ousted the two Topa from the Moldovan VictoriaBank, while Plahontiuc’s previous
boss, the Communist President, Vladimir Voronin, nationalized Air Moldova
company after they invested in it and lost $7mln. The two businessmen are
criticized for presenting their case in an incomplete manner to the European
Court of Human Rights, which ruled in their favor and gave them $7ml in
compensation, while being represented by Andrei Nastase.[xv] Mr. Nastase also won Moldovan
capital, Chisinau, mayoral elections against the Socialist Party candidate, and
Presidential adviser to Mr Dodon[xvi], which was cancelled by
the Moldovan justice system, reported to be largely subordinated to Mr Plahotniuc.[xvii] Both EU and US issued
strong condemnations to such a development.[xviii]
A
new idea – Socialists and ACUM to vote Plahotniuc down and organize early “clean”
elections
A new idea to get rid of the governing oligarch,
Vladimir Plahotniuc, was launched on a Russian language website.[xix] It suggests that
Pro-Putin Socialists and pro-Western ACUM block, despite being in disagreement,
should vote down the government controlled by the corrupt governing oligarch
and then organize new “clean” early elections. While ridding Moldova of
corruption is a necessary development, the plan is fatally flawed and should
not be supported, for the following reasons:
1.
Mr. Plahotniuc doesn't necessarily need the
administrative resources of the State to effectively participate in new elections.
For his party it is good to have have them, yet not a must. Plahotniuc can handle
the elections with his own money. The vote down, may indeed send a signal to
the "field" that he is no longer in charge – still, there are other
barriers that make it less relevant.
2.
To organize new "clean" elections
one would need to change the Central Electoral Commission - that's impossible,
per Moldovan legislation during elections. As a secondary matter, I would add
that changing the electoral law back, would be generally good – however, it
would be against the Coucnil of Europe (Venice Commission) and OSCE practice,
which is invoked as the best practice by at least ACUM.
3.
Same limitations go for the Audio-Visual
Council.
4.
No one will be able to take away Plahotniuc's
media overwhelmingly present in Moldovan houses. They broadcast popular Russian
channels, however, with his news inserted. These will probably work double time
for his campaign in the media.
5.
An ACUM alliance with Dodon, despite previous
joint protests against Plahotniuc, is a whole different matter. Such an
alliance may annihilate ACUM's credibility with its voters right ahead of early
elections. ACUM voters are staunchly anti-Dodon and wary of Russian interests
in Moldova.
And, predictably, ACUM just
"signed" a public promise that they won't do such an alliance.
6.
An ACUM alliance with Dodon, would also
undermine ACUM's credibility with the Western factors. Mr. Plahotniuc payed considerable
amounts of money to lobby in USA a image of Dodon’s controller and of ACUM
being partners to Russian controlled Dodon in their joint protests against
Plahotniuc.
7.
The issue of believing Dodon – we are talking
about the President who was elected on a wave of fake news, using own &
Russian support for such fake news, who "imported" money via off
shore companies from "unknown" sources and travels to coordinate with
Putin as often as he needs to, returning with a Gazprom flight. There is little
doubt that after dealing with Mr. Plahotniuc, he might not be the right person
to trust in organizing "clean" elections.
However
the most important argument is - if Mr. Dodon wants early elections, he simply
doesn't have to form a coalition with Plahotniuc. Without such a coalition, and
with ACUM determination to avoid a political suicide via a coalition either
with Dodon or Plahotniuc there will be early elections, to which President
Dodon publicly called many times. If ACUM is not needed for early elections, and
because taking down Plahotniuc’s government solves little, then such a joint
action will only play to reinforce Plahotniuc’s claim that he is the only
pro-Western player in Moldova,, despite his suggested involvement in the
Russian laundromat.
All these factors, together, do not support such a scenario, in fact they undermine only one specific party - ACUM block.
My current projections show that at this point both Plahotniuc and Dodon will expect election results to either go into early elections or actually form a new "non"existent coalition (the old "Binom" again) between their parties. The Binom may function according to the old true and tried formula, when Demacrats would play the "pro-Western" card and "attempt controlling" Dodon, while the President would continue his Russian connection.
Additionally,
they have been shifting toward what they called a "pro-Moldova" position,
as the Democrats declared after being criticized by EU, which would argue that
they a smart play between the West and East in necessary and more realistic for
Moldova’s survival. I’d argue that Moldova agonizes between the Putin’s style “Sovereign
Democracy” and EU for over 20 years and the pro-Moldova stance just delays the democratic
development of the country, justifying Russian laundromats and endemic corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment