Will Sandu Participate in the Pre-Election Debate?

Anton ŠVEC

Maia Sandu’s political strategists appear to be very unwilling to let their client have a face-to-face polemic with other presidential candidates

US June debate between Donald Trump and Joseph Biden collapsed the ratings of the latter subsequently leading to his withdrawal from the election race. Now, according to polls, the former president of the United States and Kamala Harris, who replaced her boss as the Democratic candidate, are neck and neck. Experts predict that today’s debate between Trump and Harris will largely determine the favorite of the November 5 vote. The tradition of polemics between candidates for significant positions has generally taken root in the European countries of the former USSR, but still look staged and mediocre. So, in Russia, Vladimir Putin never participated in election debates, “staying above the fray”, while his opponents mercilessly criticized each other, bringing down personal ratings. In the autumn of 2020, Moldova’s debate between Maia Sandu and Igor Dodon turned out to be quite ludicrous – politicians spent much more time on a public discussion in absentia on how, where and by what rules to conduct them, rather than on a direct rhetorical contest. Then it played into the hands of the PAS nominee, who was able to voice a wide list of accusations and claims, but at the same time evade retaliatory criticism. Now Sandu herself is in a similar situation, when the authoritarian manifestations and economic miscalculations of the ruling regime provoked a galloping increase in her anti-rating (exceeding 55%) amid a significant number of rivals in the first round, appealing to the emotions of voters and actively criticizing the government. In theory, the current president’s participation in the debate and dominance over opponents could stabilize the situation and make the campaign more predictable for her staff. However, the experience of Maia Sandu’s recent public appearances, if they were not pre-planned with the exception of any awkward questions and elements of improvisation, casts doubt on her willingness and ability to look convincing and preferably against the background of aggressive competitors. Even Yury Dud’s innocuous questions often baffled Sandu, and the interview turned out to be banal and boring, leaving ordinary viewers completely indifferent. Renato Usatii predicted the refusal of the head of state to participate in the debate back in mid-July. According to him, most TV channels will refrain from broadcasting such an event: “And the fact that the president’s office decided not to hold debates so that representatives of the parties would not come is normal. You are more dictatorial than Kin Jong Il and Alexander Lukashenko.” In fact, in 2022, Maia Sandu herself said that she would not “debate with unstable personalities”, leaving herself a convenient loophole to quit at the right moment. Back then it was about an absentee controversy with former premier Ion Chicu, who also collects signatures to participate in the elections. In August, Maia Sandu’s ex-partner in the pro-Western government, Andrei Nastase, tried to challenge her to an electoral debate from an impromptu rostrum next to the presidential office: “I believe that this European path of Moldova should be closely linked to real democracy, and this means dialogue and debate, including between the government and the opposition. You have to tell the citizens why their incomes have decreased, while the prices for food, goods and services have grown, and the absolute poverty level has exceeded a new high of 32 %?”. No answer followed. However, in September, Maia Sandu decided to comment on this issue, but her speech was florid so that nothing got clearer: “Debates are an effective element of democracy, especially when those who participate in them want to debate on specific issues and in a civilized manner. But when a few candidates turn these debates into a blatant show, it does little to help citizens form their opinions. Unfortunately, I believe there are candidates in this campaign who have other goals and want to turn both the campaign and the debates into a side show. I didn’t say I won’t participate; we’ll see how things develop. We’ll see who’s in the debate.” It is clear that the president’s political technologists, on the one hand, do not want her to give a categorical refusal (which would be perceived as a manifestation of fear and weakness with obvious consequences for the ratings), but they do not intend to let her participate in any debates with the competitors either, and they are trying to come up with suitable pretexts. This is actually confirmed by the recent statement of Vladislav Kulminski, an expert close to Sandu, who publicly recommended her not to participate in the debates: “What exactly to discuss? Look what they discuss in the studios - who, about whom and how much. The strategy is clear, the country’s development programme is clear, the achievements are clear, the shortcomings are also clear. If there is a platform for strategic debates, then yes. But if it is a bear-garden, when everyone defames each other... Why go there? Or go to different studios to become a target of those who throw lies and unfounded accusations?”. Maia Sandu started her election campaign long ago, despite her promise to refrain from moves that could be regarded as public campaigning. A series of foreign visits to Chisinau with an electoral vibe, distribution of leaflets, mass events organized at budgetary expense have a very concrete political purpose. A number of officials, including Andrei Spinu, have already announced their intentions to temporarily go on leave to support the campaign of the head of state. Most likely, the issue of the attitude of the president’s office to political debates will change depending on the course of elections and sociological findings. If the situation needs to be urgently rescued, Maia Sandu may still be “let into the ring”. The problem is that any serious candidate will have a wide field of opportunities to criticize the results of her four-year presidency and, especially, the rule of her party, and Sandu’s inability to engage in a rational debate can only exacerbate the situation. In addition, public debates on TV channels with large audiences could raise the profile of some candidates (Ion Chicu, Alexandr Stoianoglo, Irina Vlah, Andrei Nastase) and convert their relatively insignificant anti-rating into increased electoral prospects. It is highly doubtful that Sandu’s local and Western political analysts would let such a scenario happen. The “easy way out” seems preferable, when the incumbent president, following the experience of Vladimir Putin, will choose to stay out of public debates, leaving them exclusively for niche candidates who will have to cope with the task of disappointing the electorate on their own.