The voters were never given a chance to personally assess the direct clash of opinions and ideas of the main participants in the elections as to the country's pressing problems.
Only a few days are left before the denouement of one of this year's most intriguing political events in the republic - early parliamentary elections. True, their promotion as “fateful” and “of paramount importance” this time did fail to go in line with the external context. Insipid indirect squabbles, plain compromising evidence highlighting personal, rather than professional, qualities of certain politicians. Unsurprisingly, the voter was not particularly
impressed with the efforts of most electoral contestants.
Yesterday, however, there was finally a chance to cheer up a little this electoral quagmire adding drive and even an element of show. The precondition was an unexpected, but at the same time logical proposal of the bloc of communists and socialists to the Action and Solidarity party to come to the debate. A face-to-face meeting of the two main irreconcilable rivals could be quite useful for many of our undecided fellow citizens and give food for thought to all the rest.
Political debate is generally one of the essential attributes of the pre-election process in countries with developed democracies. For some reason, they are still treated carelessly in our country. Either the debaters simply
have nothing to say, or they
quit them with a scandal, or
don't appear at all under the pretext of the interlocutor's “inappropriateness”. But this is actually an excellent chance for the population to assess the politicians' true worth, so to say. In the end, to write a fancy program is not a tricky business, since paper will endure everything. But to defend it against the competitors, parrying all nasty questions, is a completely different task.
The practice of holding debates between the two race leaders a few days before the vote is not new even for our region. The most famous example of recent years is a "battle" between the presidential candidates Volodymyr Zelensky and Petro Poroshenko at the Olympic stadium in Kyiv. The then head of state, despite all the risks, showed courage to come to confront Zelensky. It seemed that in our case there was also a chance that PAS and BoCS would come face to face.
At least, the right-wing didn't immediately responded with a categorical refusal - they promised to consider it. And the party's press secretary said that many of its representatives want to come to the debate, "There are many people in PAS, including people whom Dodon sued for calling him a thief, who want to go to the debate with Dodon and the socialists."
PSRM representative Vlad Batrincea sent the rules of debate to the PAS chairman Igor Grosu, and also announced topics they are going to address: economy, regional development, social policy, education, justice and the fight against corruption, the Transdniestrian settlement and foreign policy. Nevertheless, the right-wing ultimately rejected the proposal of electoral competitors in a daring and offensive manner.
"PAS has nothing to talk about with thieves who are on the take. On July 11 thieves will receive a due verdict. Every day PAS speaks with people in every village, in every city of Moldova, around the world, who were expelled from the country by thieves. Citizens have only one question to Dodon, Voronin, socialists and communists - what was in the bag? The thieves' place is in prison, not in power, not in discussion rooms, not on television. On Sunday, Moldova will tell you where you belong. On July 11, you will answer to the people, and after July 11 - to the court," the party's message said.
Batrincea replied to that saying that PAS "is afraid of open discussions" and "prefers quarrels and chaos to the detriment of a civilized dialogue."
The pro-presidential party's decision did not come as a big surprise, but it certainly was a disappointment. It’s even kind of weird that these were not the right-wingers who proposed the debate. They could use them to take a very comfortable attacking position and give their opponents a hard time, as Zelensky did, simply showering Poroshenko with a bunch of tough questions. After all, the socialists ruled the country for at least the last year and a half, and there are things they could be held accountable for - unlike PAS which was in opposition and therefore is off the hook.
However, the party continues to rest on the laurels of the December victory and seems to have completely fallen into a state of suspended animation, allowing the president and external partners to do all their pre-election work. Thus, the head of state continues to solo in the election campaign of her party, meeting with the diaspora, foreign partners, making numerous appeals to different segments of the population to go to the polls. Meanwhile, the international players tour across the government agencies and institutions properly instructing them to make the "right" decisions, as was the case with the polling stations abroad.
The record number of diaspora representatives who registered to vote on July 11, as well as excellent poll results for the PAS, seem to have completely loosened up the leader of the electoral race, who decided not to get out of his deep trench until Sunday. Perhaps, that tactic makes sense, but the very fact of refusing to debate once again reveals the weakness of the formation, which, even in an advantageous position, was afraid to publicly grapple with its direct competitors.
And this prompts one to think whether PAS, accustomed to being overprotected by the president and external actors, will be able to quit a cozy bunker after the supposed victory and tackle numerous Moldovan problems. That's a bit doubtful, and not only for me and other observers, but also for the very international partners who are already staffing the presidential team (and perhaps other government institutions in future) with groups of foreign advisers and consultants.