>’What matters is if these tensions will paralyze the country’s modernization like it happened in Ukraine since the Orange Revolution…’

As a Ukrainian I believe 99% it will be so. Unfortunately, the essence of democratization lies in change of cultural patterns, not only in change of laws. It means that to become democratic, substantial part of society has to change its personal attitudes towards themselves and their compatriots. This is an extremely challenging work.
I’m not sure that Moldovians realize that roots of their problems lies in their minds, and not in Voronin’s or Communist Party’s evil intentions. Nevertheless, I hope that the most difficult part of work has been carried out by Moldovians in previous years.

On the other hand, it seems post-Soviet nations have a privilege of possessing various accelerating effects. At our times we need only years to get the same changes in minds the societies in previuos centuries had to work for decades.

‘Orange Revolution’ brought a lot of disappointment for its creators, and me personally. On the other hand I see with satisfaction how rapidly political consciousness of the nation grows. Democracy requires high price to be paid, and it must be paid by the society. I do not see another way of establishing democracy.

In this respect President Medvedev’s last initiatives on democratization of Russia look very infantile. Something like I’d like Russia to be democratic by a wave of the magic wand. = По щучьему велению, по моему хотению…) Its a great tragedy of this country that it is very restricted in ability to survive though democratic transition. So, let’s show patience to them. On the other hand, Russians have to realise that its impossible to learn swimming on shore. And our duty is to remind them about their mission to make Russia free.

Nicu also right about communist party. It might retain support of old and very young. Those in between are more pragmatic like Lupu.

I know a director of school in Balti. He joined communist party because that way his school could get new equipment and more funding from communists (other schools did not). These kind of people are waiting to see where the power swings. If they see that liberals are to stay in power many of them will leave communist and will join a liberal party. They care about positions and funding.

New government needs to postpone the presidential elections as much as they can and take over the ministries and show that they hold control so that everybody believes that Voronin is gone. Then even if there are next elections communist support will fall down below 40%. Plus there will be less fraud.

It’s a real plaisure to read you.

Real political and historical changes are rarely easy to spot when they happen.

What about the end of the Ancien Régime in France, for example? Or what about 9/11?

think of how impressive was georgia in 2003 and how dissapointing in 2007, hungary in the 90s vs 2005, (for some) putin in his first years, and on his second term, the orange revolution in 2005 vs 2007/2008.

Do you think that “impressive” is an appropriate term to qualify these evolutions? Who is supposed to be impressed? Developments of all kind, especially political, are naturaly non-linear. That’s why prior to comparing there is a need to differentiate context, caracter, scale or level of various events or processes.
Russia and Ukraine had both changed in term of governance: in 2000 and 2005 respectively. And all developments, regardless their caracter, which are posterior to putin’s accession to power or to the orange revolution occur within a specific evolutional frame. But this is not the case in Moldova. Recent developments correlate with that country’s original trajectory dating back to early and mid 1990s.

Also you write that new ministers are better than their communist predecessors. You probably wanted to stress on their competence, profile? But, they are freshly nominated so any conclusion in their regard is a risk.

moldova will have a very strong opposition that will scrutinise the government. this will ensure greater pluralism. the new government is too weak to reproduce the communist’s monopolised politcal and economic system under a different brand. and this will ensure greater pluralism for political, economic and societal interests.

The problem is that governement is far from being omnipotent in Moldova. Voronin’s era produced an intergrated network of social and economic players closely connected to power. Now, it will most probably be reajusted accordingly because it’s main function has always been to ensure Moldova’s economic survival. It proved to be efficient during this critical year.
nevertheless, that decade-old system of checks and balances “à la moldave” will persist: various political configurations in state institutions are only some of many expressions delivered by this system.
That’s why I suggest that Mr. Voronin’s departure does not mean the end of Voronin’s era. Best, Olivier.

I agree with Oliver that it’s too early to speak about fin de regime. My prediction is that it will sooner survive than die. Post-Soviet political regimes look like hydra. If you take off its head, new two begin to rise up.
Nicu, could you give a general description of new government, esp. personal profiles of key personalities? I believe at the moments of potential radical social changes personal background of main personalities really matters.
Anyway I wish to Moldova to succeed on a way of real pro-European reforms. I suppose you agree that any successful precedents are extremely important for post-Soviet societies.

I had quite the same thoughts on ‘a very strong opposition’ in Ukrainian politics. However, reality appeared quite different. We have a very strong populism as the main method of opposition, and the same response from the Government. And, what is the most interesting thing, both sides do nothing to establish the rule of law and fight corruption.

Today I’ve read about PM’s initiative on introduction of Romanian language instead of Moldovian one. Probably, this initiative is correct in essence. But from political point of view it is the most dangerous thing for the future reforms I only can imagine. For me this step means that this Cabinet is not going to make serious reforms. These guys are still on their electoral barricades. It’s a pity…

Nicu, the biggest mistake of Ukrainian society after Orange Revolution was to trust a fate of reforms in the hands of politicians. Please, do not make the same mistake in Moldova. You have from the very beginning to demand from the Government to produce not populist slogans, but serious legislative work followed by rapid institutionalisation; not politically contradictory initiatives leading to conflicts in society, but establishment of the rule of law and transparency in Government’s activities.

this is to confirm the continuity in governance pattern:

Last week, acting Moldovan President and parliament speaker Mihai Ghimpu advanced only one candidate for appointment as governor of the Moldovan National Bank: his nephew (or “nepot” in Romanian). Source: Moldova’s Near Miss With Nepotism by L. O’Neill ( RFE/RL, 5/10/09)

Unlike most of the posters, I was actually in Moldova in April 2009 when a mob of several thousand mostly young “people” (I use the word “liberally”) burned and ransacked the Parliament and the Presidential building; angry that the so-called “liberal” and “democratic” forces that they had supported in the elections two days prior had been soundly defeated by the “Communists,” these young, disoriented kids, encouraged by “people” like the “Liberal-Democrat” politician Filat, the “Liberal” politician Chirtoaca, etc, and directed in their rampage by fascistic Romanian ultra-nationalist organizations served as the shock troops for what was nothing if not a coup attempt against a “Communist” government that, however flawed it might have been, was genuinely elected.
The author of this article and the head of this blog is a member of a prominent and thoroughly establishment pro-Western “think-tank” called the “European Council on Foreign Relations.”
He, Mr. Popescu, is entitled to whatever opinions he might happen to hold, but you all have the right to know that his views are by no means representative of those of the majority of the citizens of Moldova.
The main backers of the new coalition government in Moldova are 1) better-off company managers and businesspeople who believe that they can make even more money if Moldova makes a more resolute turn towards Europe economically 2) Those peoples’ children and 3) Romanian chauvinist elements, generally though not exclusively young people, who have views which can fairly be regarded as fascist or Nazi in their essence.
The so-called “libreral” and “democratic” forces eventually took power by a drawn-out process involving two sets of elections in a 4 month period of time; the reality that Mr. Popescu and other “liberals” and “democrats” don’t want you to know is that the process of regime change in question was undoubtedly bankrolled and underwritten by the regime of the deeply reactionary Romanian President Traian Basescu and his patron and master, the US government.
The goal was and is the replacement of a “Communist” government which was seen as generally being insufficiently pro-US in its geopolitical orientation (read, the Moldovan “Communists” were against Moldova’s entrance into NATO and they were seen as being a little too friendly with Moscow) and as insufficiently open to Western capital penetration.
What has the new so-called “democratic” and “liberal” regime been up to in the 3 months or so that it has held power?
Well, it has signed an agreement with the IMF which freezes many public sector workers’ wages (including the pay of many teachers, some of whom will actually see their pay get cut), slashes the budgets for science, education, culture, the arts, agriculture etc., reduces unemployment benefits, reduces pensions to certain categories of recipients and generally takes the ax to all manner of social programs that the so-called “Communists” had implemented.
As an aside, I do not want my comments here to be understood as a form of support for the “Communist” Party; from a socialist standpoint, it can be said that the leadership of that party was thoroughly pro-capitalist, not critical enough (or hardly at all) of US imperialism and NATO and allowed and benefitted from quite a good deal of corruption.
All that having been said, the new regime is just — at least from the standpoint of someone who cares about the conditions of the working class and poor, about the democratic rights of the masses and about the cause of peace in the world, — more overtly reactionary.
Besides agreeing, as part of the loan agreement with the IMF, to cut social spending and freeze wages, the new “liberal” and “democratic” regime has also committed itself to raising all manner of taxes and fees on things like gasoline, beer and vodka, road usage fees, cigarettes, heat in peoples’ apartments, drinking water in the apartments, public transport, etc, etc, etc. The majority of such fee and tax increases will clearly hit the ordinary and poor people the hardest, which isn’t surprising given the fact that such people largely didn’t vote in the first place for the parties that have formed the new government.
I spoke here about the inferiority of the new government also in the sphere of democratic rights; besides harassing and closing media outlets which are known/expected to be critical of it (especially those in the Russian language), the new government has also been making a lot of noise about banning “communist” symbols and even the “Communist” Party itself.
This shows how lying and hypocritical the leaders of the new regime are; they criticized the old “Communist” government for all manner of abuses, both real and imagined, criticized it for being a “dictatorship” (it wasn’t) and are themselves now manifesting all manner of authoritarian tendencies.
A government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich is what has been installed in Moldova; this government is plainly anti-worker and anti-poor, led at its highest levels by Romanian chauvinist levels and is more than willing to use dubious administrative methods to squelch all criticism of it. Yup, this is “democracy,” at least in the eyes of Moldova’s narrow upper class; this is also how Washington sees “democracy.”

Well, I’m surprised that you responded to me, Mr. Popescu. In the interests of keeping this discussion going, I’ll make few more points, many of which will be responses to what you wrote:
You wrote: Al, seeing two minutes from a movie, and seeing the entire movie (and understanding it) are different things. You might have been in april in Moldova but what I see below does not strike me as a good unbiased understanding of what is going on.

My response: I wasn’t just in Moldova in April of 2009, but have lived there off and on for about 5 years. What does an “unbiased understanding” mean? I am not unbiased — I have certain values and am most aggressively opposed to those political forces/individuals which are most clearly and most emphatically opposed to those values. Of course, you aren’t unbiased either nor would I expect you to be; in fact, on the top of this blog is an advertisement for “The Alliance of Liberal-Democrats for Europe,” a nice-named sounding name which can’t really conceal the fact that said alliance is definitely dedicated to right-wing “values.” Again, you have every right to support whatever views and political factions that you want, but it is a bit rich to pretend that you and your blog are “unbiased.”
You wrote: You are obviously a staunch leftist supporter of the Communist party.
My response: I am a socialist, and a real one, not like the nominally socialist (actually thoroughly pro-capitalist) politicians who run countries like Spain and who you made reference to. I am not a supporter of the so-called “Communist” Party in Moldova; I simply regard the so-called “liberal” and “democratic” parties (actually right-wing) as being more reactionary, more dangerous and clearly more destabilizing for the entire society. The choice between the “Communist” Party and the “liberal” and “democratic” ones is, in my view, like the choice between different deadly “diseases: the “liberal” and “democratic” parties would just guarantee a faster death (for Moldova) than the “Communist” Party.
You wrote: it seems that you also are well to the left of the Communist parties’s views as well.
My response: I am a socialist, and not a supporter of the historically bankrupt capitalist system like the “Communist” Party is (and as are, of course, the “liberal” and “democratic” also.)
You wrote: But now a few responses to some of the claims you made:
- your accusations of fascism, chauvinism and nazism – well. these were key electoral messages of the Communist propaganda back in July. Your discourse uncritically reproduces what many agree was a bad election campaign by the Communists. Not even they believe is this crap. I do talk to Communists and some of the supporters more or less regularly, I have not seen a single one believing in this.
My response: That many, many of the “shock troops” of the so-called “liberal” and “democratic” parties are hardcore Romanian nationalists with a worldview that can fairly be described as fascist is unquestionably true. Besides the fact that I also talk fairly regularly to many of the supporters of the “Communist” Party and have done so ever since I first came to Moldova, I also have many acquaintances (younger ones) who support the “liberal” parties. When I first starting talking with such young people around 5 years ago, I was shocked and horrified by how viciously racist and backwards their worldviews were; many of them — here I’m primarily talking about the ones who speak Moldovan or Romanian as their first language — hate Russians, Jews, Gypsies, and think that Ion Antonescu, the former military-fascist dictator of Romania who served as a junior partner of Hitler in the invasion of the Soviet Union, was a good guy.
During the April 7 protests/orgy of destruction, many of the people in the front rows of the crowd were members of the Romanian fascist group “Noua Dreapta” (The New Right) and were wearing symbols/waving flags (such as the Celtic Cross) associated with Noua Dreapta and fascist organizations in general. Even more of the protestors were wearing clothing on which there was written the slogan “Basarabia — Pamant Romanesc” (Basarabia — basically Moldova — Romanian Land), a revanchist slogan which meshes perfectly with the outlook of the fascists from Noua Dreapta (they also favor the use of such a slogan.)
After the April 7 orgy of destruction, in the newspaper “Capitala” (The Capital), which is published by Chisinau’s City Hall, there appeared an article entitled “Va ordon, treceti Prutul!” (I order you: cross the Prut River!) This is a direct quote from Ion Antonescu when he was sending Romanian troops into Moldova as part of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union; the scandal is that the respective newspaper is published by Chisinau’s City Hall and is subordinate to Chisinau’s Mayor, the so-called “Liberal” Dorin Chirtoaca. Mr. Chirtoaca has never apologized for the fact that a blatantly pro-fascist article (and there have been others of this type) appeared in a newspaper which he oversees.
On the December 1 National Day of Romania, Mihai Ghimpu, the speaker of the Parliament, interim President of the Country, Chirtoaca’s uncle and the head of the “Liberal Party”, gave a speech in the center of the city in which he said “By the will of God, Moldova is populated by Romanians (note: not even Moldovans!!!) and the Russians need to live in Russia.” This is the latest of countless racist remarks that Ghimpu — a rather intellectually limited figure — has made in his career as a right-wing nationalist politician. It is worth noting that noone — not even the supposedly “center-left” “Democratic” Party politicians who are in alliance with different “Liberal” parties — criticized this blatantly racist remark of Ghimpu.
The examples that I could give in this sense are endless.
You wrote: according to you the backers of the new government are 1) better-off company managers, 2) their kids, and chauvinists. If Moldova was Switzerland it perhaps had as many better-of company managers as you imply.
My response: It is undeniably true that, by and large, better-off company managers and the owners of sizeable businesses generally supported the “liberal” and “democratic” parties(I am not denying that some supported the “Communist” party, but that they voted disproportionately for the “liberal” and “democratic” parties is confirmed by the voting statistics.) Furthermore, the poorer people generally voted, for lack of any better alternative, for the “Communist” Party. These voting tendencies are, in a broad sense, rational: that is, the “liberal” and “democratic” ) parties favor more rapid privatization and a more aggressively “neoliberal” capitalist economic orientation which the rich are likely to be the main (or only) beneficiaries of. The “Communist” Party favored a somewhat slower rate of privatization and a somewhat less aggressively “neo-liberal” capitalist economic orientation, and the poor generally rationally viewed this as being less aggressively hostile to their interests. Again, the voting statistics do confirm that a disproportionately large section of the well-off voted for the “liberal” and “democratic” parties while a disproportionately large portion of the relatively poor voted for the “Communist” Party.
You wrote: If you look at election results on a district-by-district basis you would see that the Communists got proportionally more votes in the relativeley well-off and romanianised Chisinau, than in the villages of Central Moldova – which has almost no managers. What you claim has very little to do with the reality.
My response: Actually, what I wrote is generally consistent with the break-down of the vote. Chisinau — where there are concentrated a relatively high number of rich business people — is a place where the Communists always did more poorly than they did in the rest of the country as a whole. You are right when you claim that Chisinau is relatively “Romanianised.” While in Moldova as a whole only 2% of the population calls itself “Romanian,” in Chisinau that number is about 4%. For those who don’t know, those people who call themselves “Romanian” in Moldova (instead of Moldovan) disproportionately back the “liberal” and “democratic” parties which, as I’ve made clear, are actually right-wing nationalist parties. To call oneself Romanian in Moldova is more or less to say that you hate “Communism” and that you favor the swallowing of Moldova by Romania (euphemized by referring to this as “unire” — union.)
As for the places in Central Moldova where the “Communist” Party did relatively poorly, it is possible that some of such places may be poorer than Moldova as a whole (which is a poor country — the poorest in Europe.) However, the key factor in such “raioane” (counties or districts) is not their relative richness or poverty compared to other places in Moldova (in any event it is not clear that they are generally better or worse off than the typical village in Moldova), but their degree of Romanianization. For example, raionul Nisporeni [the county Nisporeni] is on the border with Romania, it has a relatively small number of ethnic/national and religious minorities and it has a relatively high number of people who regard themselves as Romanian and who favor Romania’s swallowing of Moldova (again, euphemized as “unire” or union.)
You wrote: on freezes of public sectors wages and austerity budget. Well, this is what almost every country in Europe is doing – including Spain and Hungary which are lead by Socialists. Of course Moldova is doing the same
My response: Before the elections, the “liberal” and “democratic” parties were promising much higher salaries, much better pensions, etc. To me it was clear that, if they managed to get into power, they would renege on these promises immediately, but some people might have fallen for these fraudulent promises. Immediately after they actually did get into power, they started negotiating with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and quickly agreed to a whole series of austerity measures which will substantially lower most peoples’ (read, not the richest Moldovans) standard of living. In other words, as soon as they got into power, they abandoned the different populist promises that they had made during the election campaign. Of course, this was all predictable enough; as they know they have to pay back the business owners and well-off company managers who numbered among their strongest backers, the “liberals” and “democrats” never really had any ability or desire to implement policies designed to help pensioners or poorly-paid public sector workers. Here, we see the zero-sum game of budgetary policies — helping the rich necessarily comes at the expense of the working-class people. The fact that the “liberal” and “democratic” politicians immediately reneged on their campaign promises to help ordinary workers and pensioners just shows how lying, shameless and power-hungry they are.
The “Socialist” Parties which lead countries like Spain and now Greece are socialist in name only; the right-wing, pro-business and anti-worker orientation of their economic policies is clear for all to see, and has been for a years now.
You wrote: The Communists in government would have done the same becuase there is an economic crisis out there, and you seem to be unaware of it.
My response: The so-called “Communists” probably would have largely proceeded in the same way, though we can’t exclude that the possibility there also might well have been some differences “around the margins.” First of all, after the April elections, the “Communists” (and apparently the “liberals” and “democrats”, as well) met with officials from the IMF. The “Communists” later (after losing power) said that they refused to sign an agreement in May because of the harshness of the conditions that the IMF was imposing in exchange for the granting of the loans; interestingly enough, one of the conditions that the “Communists” said the IMF was imposing on them in exchange for the loans was to let the currency depreciate which, shortly after the “liberals” and the “democrats” came to an agreement with the IMF, did indeed begin to happen (and is likely to continue.)
Again, in the event that the “Communists” would have won again in the late-July 2009 repeat elections, it is likely that, in broad terms, they would have done the same things that the “liberals” and the “democrats” have done, though the variant through which the Russian and Chinese governments would have loaned them a good portion of the money that they needed might well have given them the chance to “tone down” to a certain degree the harshness of the measures that the IMF demanded (and which the “liberals” and the “democrats” did indeed eventually implement in full.) In the case that the Russian and Chinese governments would have loaned the “Communist” government money, the harshness of the IMF’s economic austerity conditions probably would have been partially reduced, in exchange for the Moldovan government becoming somewhat closer geopolitically to the Russian and Chinese states.
That there is a world economic crisis is indisputable; that the crisis flows from the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist order is also clear. In the 14-15 months since the crisis intensified massively, what we have seen is that, specific methods or policies aside, all the capitalist governments of the world have sought to “resolve” the crisis by means of pushing all of the costs onto the backs of the working people. The recklessness, criminality and incompetence of a relative handful of bankers and speculators might well have been the trigger for the crisis, but the governments of the world have insisted that not this super-rich financial elite to which they are subordinate, but the ordinary working people who hold no blame for the crisis be made to pay for it. In Moldova, the IMF austerity program is consistent with this general tendency. Already poor people will become poorer because billionaires in the world’s major financial centers engaged in gambling schemes on the order of tens and hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars. The IMF will ensure that the masses pay for gambling losses of the speculators … be those people from Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, etc, etc, etc.
Had the “Communists” been real “Communists” they would have repudiated a big part of Moldova’s debt and told the IMF to go to hell. They could have gotten their financing needs by taxing the richest Moldovans more heavily and by borrowing from sympathetic governments in places such as Venezuela. But the “Communists” are not real Communists and so they didn’t do this.
You wrote: And of course when you argue that “the new regime has also committed itself to raising all manner of taxes and fees on things like gasoline, beer and vodka, road usage fees, cigarettes” etc – I thought this is called redistribution and is a rather left-leaning measure – collecting taxes from those drive to redistribute them to those who don’t.
My response: While smoking may well be a bad habit, increasing taxes on cigarettes hits the poor harder than the rich. An extra leu a day represents a much larger portion of the income of the poor than than of the income of the rich. The same thing can be said of taxes on alcohol. Higher road-usage fees tend to hit people in the middle of the income-distribution ladder the hardest.
It is worth mentioning that the “liberals” and “democrats” also cut a few taxes (though the size of these tax cuts is smaller than that of the other tax increases, the budget cuts and that the price increases for water, public transport, natural gas, electricity, heat in apartaments that they have all given their approval to.) The tax cuts which the “liberals” and “democrats” have approved are for things like continuing the existing exemption from taxation of interest income. In other words, an income source that is much more significant for the rich — the capitalists — than for everyone else is to continue to be exempted from taxes for the next 5 years. They are doing this while they are letting (already scandalously small) salaries and pensions decline in real (inflation-adjusted) terms.
As I said in my first post, this is a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. This will all become even clearer over the course of 2010.

Nothing in Moldova will change as long as the masses remain undereducated, complacent, and apathetic, continually blaming the Jews and Zionism for all of their problems (especially since most, if not all, Moldovan-born Jews have immigrated to either Israel or North America). To continually blame a non-caring, belligerent oligarchy is an easy way out for explaining away the very fact that the masses are shirking their responsibilities to each other. A belligerent oligarchy can only rule over a people, if they are permitted. It’s time that the Moldovan people take responsibility over themselves to form a viable democracy and egalitarian economic enterprise. Stop blaming others and take matter into your own hands. The university students in the U.S. (teenaged, American kids) are more capable than the average Moldovan, it appears — and that’s not saying very much.