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.