LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF

MOLDOVA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S RENEWED CALL TO

POLITICAL DIALOGUE
June 12, 2019

On June 11, the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM) has renewed the call
on parliamentary parties to join a comprehensive dialogue for finding
solutions to the current political and constitutional crisis. PDM’s chief
negotiator, Vlad Cebotari, recalled that the day before, on June 10, the
Democrats had invited the parliamentary factions of PSRM (Socialist Party,
led by Zinaida Greceanîi), PAS (Action and Solidarity Party, led by Maia
Sandu) and PPDA (Dignity and Truth Party, led by Andrei Năstase) to
discuss ways to overcome the current situation in Chisinau. So far, despite
the undoubted need for dialogue, endorsed by the international community,
the three parliamentary factions have not answered PDM’s call.

But there is a constitutional deadlock in the Republic of Moldova and the

latest rulings of the Constitutional Court cannot be ignored. Pursuant to
these rulings, the country has a legitimate government headed by Pavel
Filip, although with limited competencies, a dissolved parliament and an
impeached president. In this context, PDM fundamentally calls on all
political leaders to act responsibly towards overcoming the existing crisis.

Where do we stand today. From the outside, the Republic of Moldova

may seem to be in the unlikely situation of having “two governments” - yet,
according to the Constitutional Court, there is only one legitimate
government in Chisinau - the one led by Prime Minister Pavel Filip - which
has continued to act upon the Court’s rulings. Moreover, the Court also
ruled on June 9 that President Igor Dodon must face impeachment for
failing to dissolve the parliament within the legal deadline. Prime Minister
Pavel Filip has stepped in as acting President, triggering snap elections for
September 6.

The Constitutional Court of Moldova said on June 11 that “in a state

anchored in the values of democracy and the rule of law, with an
established constitutional court, judgments and decisions of the latter must
be given the fair weight, considering its role as a sole interpreter of the
Basic Law”. Moreover, the Constitutional Court rightfully argued that “no
political aim can justify the disregard and the attacks against the sole
legitimate authority of constitutional jurisdiction and disconsideration of
constitutional values of the rule of law and democracy. Those who call for
the dissolution of the Court are, in fact, in the Republic of Moldova,
enemies of democracy.” The Court presented further explanations on the
rulings issued over the past few days.

Yet criticism as regards the rulings of the Constitutional Court did

was not shared by the international community. Official positions of
Moldova’s main development partners do have common points. On
June 9, the European Union’s External Action Service stated that “the
respect for the rule of law and democracy should remain pillars of our
relations”, as the European Union encourages “dialogue between
democratically elected representatives” as “the key to finding a solution to
the current political crisis”.

NATO said on June 9 that the “Republic of Moldova's democratically

elected leaders need to work together to overcome this crisis” and
reaffirmed “NATO's continuing support to the Republic of Moldova in the
reform of its defense and security institutions.” The US also stressed the
need for dialogue, as the State Department called on all Moldovan parties
to “agree on a path forward through political dialogue”. Also key, the US
restressed that the “February 24 parliamentary elections were competitive
and respected fundamental rights. The will of the Moldovan people as
expressed in those elections must be respected without interference.

On June 10, the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany,

Poland, and Sweden issued a joint statement on the situation in Moldova.
The five EU member states called for “calm and restraint”, noting that “all
sides bear responsibility for the resolution of this constitutional crisis by
peaceful means.”
Also on June 10, the Chairperson-in-Office and Slovakia’s Minister of
Foreign and European Affairs Miroslav Lajčák called “on all political forces
in the Republic of Moldova to overcome the current political crisis through
dialogue, acting on the basis of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova
and the respect for democratic principles and the rule of law.”

The Ukrainian Government encouraged Moldovan political forces to solve

their differences through political dialogue in order to avoid the power
struggle, stressing that preventing external intervention is key to the
region’s security at the moment. The Turkish Government also stressed the
need for dialogue between the parties in the Republic of Moldova, on the
basis of the rule of law.

Key political leaders also endorsed the same principles. ALDE Chairman
Guy Verhofstadt said on June 11 that “it is essential for all actors to respect
the rightful state, to show restraint and to agree on a path forward through
political dialogue”. Concurrently, Andi Cristea, former Chairman of the
European Parliament’s Delegation to Moldova, stressed that snap elections
may be the only solution to the current political crisis.

Thus, one of the key principles stressed multiple times by Moldova’s

foreign partners was the overcoming of tensions through dialogue. In this
regard, the Democratic Party of Moldova stepped forward and launched an
invitation for dialogue to PSRM and ACUM (PAS & PPDA).

What happens next. The Pavel Filip Government is the one that holds
legitimacy granted by the law. In order to allow the formation of a full-
fledged government, since the existing one has rather administrative
prerogatives, a political solution must be found as soon as possible,
through dialogue. Further on, considering all proofs of president Igor
Dodon’s political and financial vassalage on Russia, the international
community must also address the legitimacy of the president’s positioning
and support for the Maia Sandu government, which he illegally negotiated
on behalf of the Socialist Party.