Disputed identity as unescapable pluralism. Moldova's ambiguous transition.

• Author: Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina
• Position: POLSCI PAPERS - Essay

Abstract: Romania's accession to the European Union in 2007 provided Europe with an odd new neighbor. The small country of Moldova (4.3 millions inhabitants, with only two thirds de facto residing there) was pictured by The Economist in 1995 as "a perfect lab for the enacting of reforms" and a "model" for the right approach to reforms. Since its independence in 1991, this former Soviet republic with a Romanian-speaking majority embarked on establishing a democratic system of government based on fundamental rights and freedoms. It adopted a Constitution in 1994, which created a semi-parliamentary political system, with a President directly elected by voters. Moldova adopted all the UN conventions she was required to; unlike in the Baltic States, its minorities were granted citizenship and Russian was practically given the status of a second official language. In 1994, the country held its first free and fair popular elections; in 1998, 2001 and 2005 free elections were again held. In 2000, the Constitution was revised and Moldova again gave satisfaction to Western advisors, by giving up direct elections for President so turning its back completely to semi-presidentialism. The effects were immediate: the Parliament elected the first Communist President since the fall of Communism.

Keywords: transition, demonstration effect, Moldova, communism, Transnistria, Russia

Introduction

Analyzing 'what went wrong', a 2000 UN report identified as primary cause that 'Reform implementation was influenced by the electoral cycles' and also that '...both legislative and executive slowed down their activity during elections ... Three electoral campaigns were run once in four years, in the framework of an unconsolidated state and an economy plagued by risks'. In other words, had it not been for Moldova's democratic process the country would have recorded steadier progress. But these 'problems' are common to all East European success stories, as the countries which recorded the greatest economic progress are also those which advanced further on the democratic path, and these advances, both in Central and SEE Europe were always contentious. Compared with Poland's, Moldova's politics, with elections only once in four years, was relatively dull.

It is perhaps due to the difficulty of explaining Moldova's exceptionality that the country is usually left out, together with Albania, with whom it shares the title of the poorest European country, when discussing the democratization of Eastern Europe. Moldova has slowly turned into an embarrassment to Western donors. Since declaring independence in 1991, Moldova has been one of the most pluralistic post-Soviet states. Still, she struggles with state consolidation, a weak economy, identity problems and a massive desertion by nearly all its qualified workforce. Writing in 2003, International Crisis Group advanced optimistically that: 'The conflict in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova is not as charged with ethnic hatred and ancient grievances as other conflicts in the OSCE area and it is more conducive to a sustainable settlement."1 Four years later we are as far as ever from having solved the Transnistrian conflict. Quite to the contrary, in 2006 Transnistria organized a successful referendum on its independence.

Explaining why Moldova fares so bad after behaving relatively well does not stumble from want of justifications. As we shall show, structural constraints to an independent, prosperous and democratic Republic of Moldova are plenty. We confront too many explanations, not too few. This paper will review them briefly, discussing the project's hypotheses underlined by Valerie Bunce as a conclusion of the broader discussion.

Brief assessment of Moldova's democracy

How democratic is Moldova? Its elections have been repeatedly considered free and fair by OSCE international observers, except for the breakaway region of Transnistria. Unlike in neighboring Belarus or Russia, its presidents have repeatedly lost the power fight with their legislatures. A critical media and civil society does exist, even if it is faced with economic problems. The nature of the occasional harassment of the media by authorities is not, however, typical for an autocracy. Media outlets are rather submitted to intimidation by tax authorities or threatened with corruption charges, rather than openly attacking journalists for their opinions.

Freedom House ranks Moldova as a non-consolidated democracy. Nations in Transit scores since the start of this Freedom House program in 1997 have placed Moldova close to Romania, especially when electoral process is concerned. Moldova lags behind on local government and governance issues more generally. It is also one of the most corrupt European countries according to Transparency International, but its scores over the last years were close to Romania and Bulgaria, the latest EU entrants. Rule of law is the area where Moldova fails most notably in meeting democratic criteria. Moldova's judiciary does not provide the checks and balances fundamental to a consolidated democracy. The judiciary also suffers from weak institutional capacity, including low capacity of judges, low wages, and lack of internal controls to curb corruption, weaknesses in the system of appointing and promoting judges, poor administrative and case management, and failure to enforce judicial decisions. The practice of "telephone justice" subsists despite improvements in the legislation meant to protect the independence of the judiciary.

Despite occasional massive participation to public protests, Moldova has managed to stay non-violent throughout these years of political disputes. The only violent incidents or non-compliance with European law are related to Transnistria. The central government in Chisinau has no authority in the Transnistria region, which has been ruled by a separatist regime since 1992. Hence, the Moldovan state is unable to uphold fundamental human, political, and civil rights there. For instance, although Moldova generally complies with the decisions of the ECHR, it is unable to implement the ECHR's decision in a notable case, Ilie Ilascu and Others vs. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (2004), in which Moldova was asked to ensure the liberation of two remaining detainees of the "Ilascu group," who have been held illegally by the Transnistrian separatist regime for over a decade for the mere fault of opposing Transnistria's secession. Another ECHR case on Transnistrian abuses features 1,300 farmers who have filed a case for being barred by the local militia form accessing their farmland. Harassing schoolchildren to make them enroll in Cyrillic language schools has also generated frequent incidents across the Nistru. As a result, there are claims that the Transnistrian regime is pursuing a policy of linguistic cleansing, and there are indications that the Romanian-speaking population of the Transnistrian region has decreased from 40 percent in 1989 to just 30 percent in 2005 (1). On the Moldovan bank bilingualism is the general rule, with schools, media and administration performing in both languages (2).

Moldova is a parliamentary democracy wherein citizens can change their government under a system of universal, equal, and direct suffrage. Voters choose members of the 101-seat Parliament for four-year terms according to a system of proportional representation. Under the 1994 constitution Moldova was designated as a "presidential-parliamentary republic." However, since the constitution, based on the Romanian one, did not adequately define how executive powers were to be shared between the prime minister and the president, a constant power struggle resulted within the executive branch. Efforts by President Petre Lucinschi to transform the political system into a presidential system, although fairly popular, alienated the members of Parliament. In an effort to derail attempts by President Lucinschi to change the constitution, in 1999 Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution that established Moldova as a "parliamentary republic." This seriously weakened the powers of the presidency and made the chief executive dependent on the legislature's continued support to remain in office. The amendments also eliminated the president's ability to initiate legislation and transferred the greatest authority to the majority party or group in the legislature. Lucinschi's term expired in the fall of 2000 but the sitting Parliament was unable to elect a new president as no candidate was able to muster a majority vote. Centrists within the National Assembly consistently sought to block the Communist Party candidate, Vladimir Voronin, from becoming the new president of Moldova. After four failed attempts to select a president, President Lucinschi called for new parliamentary elections to be held in February 2001. In the wake of these elections Vladimir Voronin, the leader of the new parliamentary majority party, the PCRM, was selected as president in March 2001. Voronin enjoys the distinction of being the first head of an unreformed Communist party to be democratically elected in the former Soviet Union. He immediately reinstated the Soviet holiday of October 24.

Unfinished national emancipation

Moldova gained independence for the first time in its...