The Fruits and Frustrations of Democracy: Moldova’s Divided Parliament

Brief perspectives from Henry E. Hale and Ludmila Coada:

Moldova’s November 2010 parliamentary election once again seems to have produced a hung parliament. While the Alliance for European Integration (AEI) will be able to elect a prime minister and speaker of parliament with its simple majority, it won’t have the 61 votes needed to select a president of its choosing without some help from the Communist Party, which for over a year has refused to provide it (Algeri).

While most of the attention is on this presidential deadlock, there is a sense in which Moldova’s proverbial glass is also half full. For one thing, the election was reasonably free and fair by most reliable counts, a rarity in the post-Soviet space outside the Baltics (e-democracy). And when society is divided, as Moldova’s is, a democratic parliamentary system will produce a divided parliament, which Moldova has once again. The system, in this sense, is working. Blaming the constitution seems a little like blaming the messenger.

We should remember the reason that 61-vote requirement for electing a president was put in place instead of requiring a simple majority: To prevent any one side from imposing its will on the rest without having overwhelming support. The fact that no side has this overwhelming support, and that none has been able to achieve it despite a year of genuine political opening and fierce competition for hearts and minds, indicates that what Moldova very much needs is for its feuding politicians to compromise. This is what its constitution is forcing them to do, resist as they might. Democracy’s constraining function is as important as its enabling ones, and democracy is healthiest when politicians come to grips with this fact and learn to work within their constraints, even when this requires reaching across the aisle.

There is actually a great deal of fundamental agreement by the winning parties despite their bitter rivalries. Perhaps most importantly, all—even the Communists—support working to join the European Union. Moldova is small and “digestible” enough that it might just have a shot. Why not set aside the most divisive issues for a while and work toward this? Surely a little encouragement from the US and the European Union itself could help.

–Henry E. Hale, Director, Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, The George Washington University

________________________________

The parliamentary elections on November 28 were important for Moldova because voters had to choose between the future and the past—between a Western/EU approach or a plunge back into the Eurasian system through a stronger relationship with Russia. Moldova’s citizens mobilized, understanding the importance of the elections, with the OSCE calling the elections fair ("These elections reflected the will of the people.”). Unfortunately, the election results were not promising and do not guarantee political stability for the Republic of Moldova. The results were similar with the outcome of the 2009 July elections, when no political party was able attract the sufficient number of parliamentary votes required to elect a president. The 2010 elections proved that Moldovan society is still dispersed between old and young generations. The old generation is nostalgic for past times and remains loyal to the communist party, which seems to be their only lever to regain the stability of old Soviet times. The young generation precepts an Occident future and opts for an European country. With the new parliament, it is difficult to predict how things will develop but it is obvious that the first major step is the creation of one coalition. The leaders must be rational. Maintaining the Alliance for European Integration would be the best variant for Moldova because democratic reforms and a pro-Western orientation would continue. The Alliance can be currently formed by PLDM (Liberal Democratic Party), PD (Democratic Party), and the PL (Liberal Party) to counteract, once again, the Communist Party, which won the snap election in 2009 and also won the most seats in this election. Such a scenario would be well greeted by Western institutions. However, the current coalition does not have sufficient votes to elect the president, which is why the short-term task of the leaders of the Alliance is to find votes among the communist deputies, which will prove difficult. Any other coalition within the framework of the new parliament is difficult to imagine. A coalition of the Communists with the PLDM is an impossibility because of a contradiction in values; a coalition of the Communists with the PD is unrealistic because they would not agree on a president. Time will tell if the country’s politicians have grown up after 20 years. They need to deliver a president and other important executive and legislative solutions on behalf of the citizens who voted them into the civil service. –Ludmila Coada, Visiting Fulbright Scholar, Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, The George Washington University

________________________________

Facts and figures: Elections were held on November 28, 2010. Electoral candidates: 39 (20 political parties and 19 independent candidates). Voter turnout: 59.10% (of the country's 2.6 million eligible voters). Election results: Four political parties enter the new parliament: the Communist Party won the largest number of seats: 42; the Liberal Democratic Party: 32 seats; the Democratic Party: 15 seats, and the Liberal Party: 12 seats.

Secondary Author:

Ludmila Coada

Henry Hale

Website | + posts

Professor of Political Science and International Affairs; Co-director, Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES); Co-director, PONARS Eurasia

Affiliation

Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University

Links

The George Washington University (Bio)

Expertise

Political Regimes, Ethnic Politics, Federalism, Democratization, Political Parties, Politics of Post-Soviet Countries