Lessons of a destructive whim
By Andrei Munteanu
The results of the referendum which is approached frenetically by the Communists’ Party of the Republic of Moldova (CPRM) as a victory of theirs, has nevertheless some valuable undoubted lessons.
Undoubtedly the money spent for this event, which was intended to be a turning point for the future of the Moldovan people, might be capitalized much better. Nevertheless, of that what has been achieved – there are obvious lessons.
What matters is if we are able to learn them.
1. First of all the population of the R.M. has had the chance to understand once again about the real face of communists, about their abilities of diversionists, who, by definition of this word – diversions are NOT done with noble intentions.
2. Secondly, the population had the chance to get convinced how much irresponsible are the communists in their declarations. Throughout pre-referendum campaign we have been listening about the alleged intention of the leaders of the Alliance for European Integration to rig the results, etc., which did not happen.
On the one hand we have a lesson of maturity displayed by the political class of democratic orientation, unveiled by the irresponsible declarations of the CPRM versus the prevailing honor and dignity of the AIE parties, which, obviously were far from having such “dark thoughts” on their minds, from the very beginning.
3. Both political leaders of democratic orientation, and population, have sound grounds to understand how difficult is to struggle against “qualified” diversions, by means of non-oppressive methods and based exclusively on conviction of social consciousness.
To mention is, that it is much easier to commit intimidation of the population under the label of „boycott”, instead of trying to eventually convince the population vote „against” an initiative, such as in case of this referendum. In this case population, which tolerated to be intimidated, has been violated the fundamental right to come to voting stations – the quintessential moment of expressing the free will in a secret vote, in a democracy.
4. The population of the R.M. has had the chance to see that there is a difference of about 40% between the intentions of the population to take part in the referendum, unveiled in previous polls, and real participation directly on this day. At the same time, I believe there should not admitted a preconceived interpretation, that this result might have been only due to survey quality. The unveiled results of the survey have had some totally unpredicted effects:
(i) on the one hand the communists got virtually „electrified” and have become more aggressive in their ways of attacking and intimidation, even if psychological ones, on the population, by all means of insinuations
(ii) and, on the other hand the leaders of AEI, as it seems, got excessively relaxed, which made possible in the very last several days „overturn” expectations, which, actually were expected to be as displayed by the survey. Thinking that the previous survey could be of so poor quality as to show a mismatch of 40% (i.e. over 70% of the questioned expressed readiness to take part in the referendum and less than 30% who actually participated), is hard to believe, or, something like that has never been heard of.
5. It would be even more regretful if in the future due to results of this referendum emerged preconceived perceptions towards the scientific value of the surveys in the context of sociological sciences in the R.M., and in the decision making process in general, for the future.
6. The leaders of the AEI will have grounds to learn, and also the population as a whole, that trying to develop democracy without due attitude towards education sector – can be risky. First of all it is high time to understand that, although the population has high literacy rates in the R.M., and that the level of general knowledge is relatively good, the cognitive base of the society is irrelevant in terms of the will to develop a sustainable democracy in the country.
7. The AEI leaders will have grounds to be aware that even more, that in the future relying on the opinion of the population is far from being sufficient, and in some regards even apolitical. How could we express the regret that: „the citizens did not get aware of the fact that they were supposed to cease this constitutional crisis and [(!?)] be an example for the political parties … how the parliament must function”? (president Ghimpu’s words).
If the problem is like this, that the citizens would be a good example for the political parties on how to make the parliament functional, the citizens could rightfully raise the question – why do we need such a parliament, which expects to be “educated” by the people?
8. If in the R.M. would have proceeded in strict compliance with the democratic values, i.e. if there was not pre-established electoral threshold by law, the referendum might have serious grounds to be validated. The population did not have sufficient knowledge on the difference between the right to take part in events of public decision making (referendum) and the essence of existence and/or non-existence of electoral thresholds, which in essence are some censorship, which imply some encroachments on these rights.
Uncertainty of AEI leaders to proceed in compliance with advanced European norms on human rights in terms of referendum „played the prank”.
9. The democratic leaders will have to draw conclusions about the importance of extending development of specific skills, in the Moldovan society, also proceeding from the fact that those over 90% of the voters on September 5, have expressed positively, and over 53% account for people with higher education.
10. Last but not least, it would be a worse error if in this situation there wouldn’t be approached correctly also the issue of cyber-attack attempts, mentioned by the Mr. Secretary of the Central Electoral Commission.
Should the AEI leaders be coherent in their actions and assuming the joint responsibility towards the future of the country, might be appropriate to approach the issue promptly – not to dissolve the parliament until there is not made clarity on two issues: (i) one with regard to events of the April 7, 2009 and (ii) with regard to cyber-attack attempts of September 5, 2010. Or, missing answers to these questions, for which they bear responsibility, will imply nothing more than suspicions, despair and declining their credibility in face of the people.
For this purpose can be mobilized all kinds of both internal and external factors, people of good will, to provide the Moldovan people a credible answer.
The biggest mistake that might be committed might be if on the emotional background of the referendum results, there is taken decision to dissolve the parliament and anticipated elections announced at short notice, that would make impossible run a serious and deeper electoral campaign. Exams are still pending.
Comments