Document #2029661
Freedom House (Author)
Democracy Percentage | 35.12 100 |
Democracy Score | 3.11 7 |
By Victor Gotisan
The year 2019 was probably the most turbulent in Moldovan politics in a decade. The results of the February parliamentary elections radically changed the political situation in the country. Two camps with totally different visions—the pro-Russian Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM) and the pro-European electoral bloc ACUM (consisting of the Party of Action and Solidarity, or PAS, and the Dignity and Truth Platform Party, or PPDA)—created a “compromise coalition” in June in order to remove the oligarchic regime built by the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM), which had been in power since 2015.1 PSRM leader Zinaida Greceanîi was named speaker of Parliament, while PAS leader Maia Sandu was named prime minister. Prior to the coalition’s formation, the PDM organized protests and blocked the working of state institutions, leading coalition leaders to accuse it of attempting to usurp control of the country.2 The Sandu government moved to prosecute key figures from the former regime, like PDM leader and influential oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc, who fled the country.3 The coalition was very fragile and endured only five months, collapsing in November 2019 after the PSRM initiated a no-confidence vote. This restored the tacit alliance between the PDM and the PSRM, as the two parties joined forces to create a new government, with former PSRM leader and current President Igor Dodon’s advisor Ion Chicu serving as prime minister.
The main achievements of the brief PSRM-ACUM “compromise coalition” included judicial reforms, the de-monopolization of some sectors controlled by people or companies close to the PDM, and investigations into cases of corruption and expropriation of state assets that took place from 2013 to 2019, like the “billion-dollar theft” of assets from three Moldovan banks and the illicit concession of Chișinău International Airport. As a result of these investigations, several lawmakers from the PDM and the Shor Party had their parliamentary immunity waived so that criminal proceedings against them could begin. The coalition also began the process of changing the leadership and management of strategic state institutions like the Intelligence and Security Service (SIS) controlled by the PDM and Plahotniuc. However, this effort failed, as the PSRM and Dodon successfully installed their own loyalists in these institutions. So, by the end of the year, Moldova found itself on the brink—a hybrid regime with clear elements of an authoritarian regime.
The electoral process was under considerable strain in 2019. Moldova organized two electoral campaigns, parliamentary elections in February and local elections in October, both of which suffered in terms of fairness and equal access to the right to vote for the general population. In the parliamentary elections, observers monitoring the vote were intimidated, which has not occurred in the country since 2009.
The civil sector was quite active in 2019. It performed watchdog activities in relation to political appointments at state institutions and in government decisions taken hastily without public consultation. At the same time, civil society continued to face big challenges—most notably, defamatory campaigns orchestrated by state institutions, political parties, and partisan media.
The media freedom situation continued to deteriorate in Moldova, although problems that independent media face remained much the same, such as the ongoing intimidation of journalists. The change of government power did not lead to the de-politicization of regulatory institutions, and the dominant forces in the media sector affiliated with the PDM simply repositioned themselves as the PSRM’s influence grew.
The quality of democratic governance at the local level remains low. The year saw massive political migration of local public authorities (LPAs) away from the PDM—spurred by intimidation, this movement highlights the ongoing political dependence of LPAs on the central administration. Planned administrative-territorial reforms dating back to 2016 did not advance at all during the year.
Despite challenges facing the justice system, the sector achieved some small successes in 2019. The change of government power saw judges step forward and speak out about problems in the justice system. On the other hand, the practice of making appointments to the judiciary based on political criteria continued. The PSRM and the ACUM entertained different approaches for reforming the justice system, with the PSRM preferring to slow-walk changes to the sector and the ACUM pushing for radical reforms. This difference became the stumbling block that led to the breakup of the coalition.
The Sandu government launched several actions that injected new life into the fight against corruption. A number of PDM and Shor Party figures implicated in corruption were charged, although many cases were unresolved at year’s end, as these figures fled the country.
Moldova’s foreign policy in 2019 wavered between a pro-Western stance under the Sandu government, tasked with resetting and strengthening relations with the European Union (EU) and United States, and, after November, a pro-Russian stance exhibited by the Chicu government. In its five months in power, the Sandu government managed to regain EU trust, which led in October to the release of the first tranche of €30 million in macro-financial assistance and €55 million in sectoral assistance,4 which had been suspended in 2017. However, the fall of the Sandu government and subsequent appointment of a “technocratic government” staffed by PDM and PSRM cadres renewed development partners’ suspicions toward Chișinău.5
Resolution of the Transnistrian conflict stagnated in 2019 in the wake of Moldova’s internal challenges. A new round of 5+2 negotiations in Bratislava failed to yield any commitments,6 while an effort to improve material conditions in Transnistria stalled as the breakaway authorities in Tiraspol made no progress on certain human rights indicators.7
The year’s political uncertainties negatively affected the country’s economy. However, despite a slight slowdown, domestic and foreign experts, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, forecasted gross domestic product (GDP) growth of around 4.5 percent for 2019, fueled by rising exports as well as growth in industry.
Considers the democratic character of the governmental system; and the independence, effectiveness, and accountability of the legislative and executive branches. | 2.50 7.00 |
Examines national executive and legislative elections, the electoral framework, the functioning of multiparty systems, and popular participation in the political process. | 4.00 7.00 |
Assesses the organizational capacity and financial sustainability of the civic sector; the legal and political environment in which it operates; the functioning of trade unions; interest group participation in the policy process; and the threat posed by antidemocratic extremist groups. | 4.75 7.00 |
Examines the current state of press freedom, including libel laws, harassment of journalists, and editorial independence; the operation of a financially viable and independent private press; and the functioning of the public media. | 3.00 7.00 |
Considers the decentralization of power; the responsibilities, election, and capacity of local governmental bodies; and the transparency and accountability of local authorities. | 2.50 7.00 |
Assesses constitutional and human rights protections, judicial independence, the status of ethnic minority rights, guarantees of equality before the law, treatment of suspects and prisoners, and compliance with judicial decisions. | 2.75 7.00 |
Looks at public perceptions of corruption, the business interests of top policymakers, laws on financial disclosure and conflict of interest, and the efficacy of anticorruption initiatives. | 2.25 7.00 |
Author: Victor Gotisan is a media and politics researcher focusing on such issues as public media, media ownership, digitalization, media funding, and media law.
The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s). The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 1 the lowest. The Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year. The Democracy Percentage, introduced in 2020, is a translation of the Democracy Score to the 0–100 scale, where 0 equals least democratic and 100 equals most democratic.
https://moldova.europalibera.org/a/referendumul-din-24-februarie-eu-pen…
https://www.moldova.org/alegerile-locale-generale-vor-avea-loc-la-20-oc…
https://www.dw.com/ro/cristina-%C8%9B%C4%83rn%C4%83-despre-concursurile….