Saturday, February 23, 2019

Moldovan elections with a kompromat twist


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