“Tie Game”: The Main Results of the Presidential Debate

Sergiu CEBAN

After the debate, the pendulum has hardly swung towards one of the candidates

The impressions of the long-awaited televised debate between the two main presidential candidates is rather weird. It seemed that this event would be a defining one for many voters, but in the end, it hardly favored anyone. Admittedly, the preparation for the “debate” was more intriguing, revealing some of the weaknesses and phobias of Maia Sandu’s headquarters, as well as Alexandr Stoianoglo’s strange tendency to compromise. The confusion and the conditions, which the incumbent head of state agreed to and changed, only confirmed our assumption that her entourage would rather disrupt the debates than let their candidate take part in an event that was obviously dangerous, and even with one of the most popular Moldovan journalists as moderator. But, apparently, it was important for Stoianoglo’s team to bring Sandu to a face-to-face fight at any cost, so they agreed to her rider with the wording “a gentleman’s gesture”. It is not clear why the early Sunday morning was chosen, but this factor certainly did not add to the number of the audience. So, we’re probably not the only ones who watched the whole thing on tape. In fact, it even allowed us to look more closely and listen to what people who are running for the highest state office say. Admittedly, we heard nothing extraordinary, hence the first conclusion - the debate failed to meet expert and public expectations. There is little point in reciting the full content, but we will try to highlight only those points that really deserve attention. In her opening speech, Maia Sandu immediately accused her opponent of being a “non-serious candidate”, used as a coverage and a “Trojan horse” behind which Sor, Platon and Dodon stand. In her opinion, the debate itself is not “about Sandu and Stoianoglo, but about the model of the country, about development and stagnation, about openness and isolation, about the choice between stability and destabilization”. The former prosecutor tried to be restraint from the beginning to the end, mentioning the content of his programme, the main goals of which are to keep people in the country and to continue European modernization. He declared his intention to transform a neutral Moldova into a provider of peace and regional security, and concluded by proposing to Sandu to sign in the coming days a joint declaration on the irreversibility of the European course, regardless of who wins the second round. The debaters then touched upon the topic of anti-Russian sanctions, which, in Stoianoglo’s opinion, Moldova might not have joined, following the experience of Turkey, which is also a candidate for accession to the European Union. Explaining the actions of the Moldovan authorities, Sandu, by and large, misspoke. It turned out that Chisinau’s synchronization with the Western sanctions policy was made under the pressure of the USA and the EU, which threatened to impose restrictions on Moldova’s banking sector and economy if Moldova took a neutral stance. They, of course, discussed Ukraine. Stoianoglo remarked that he had not seen any peace initiatives or calls for a ceasefire from the current government, apart from militaristic rhetoric, and proclaimed his intention to propose platforms for a different view of the war. In a rejoinder, Sandu expressed the opinion that the chances for normal relations with Kyiv under president Stoianoglo are minimal, and that Chisinau’s refusal of sanctions threatens that Ukraine may stop the transit of Russian energy resources to Moldova. The candidates also talked about relations with Romania. Stoianoglo’s uproar about the fact that for three decades of talks about strategic partnership with our main neighbor at least one full-fledged Chisinau - Bucharest highway has never been built is distinctive. Maia Sandu countered that the Romanian authorities, like Kyiv, will never support Moscow’s appointee and will most likely suspend the implementation of their projects in our country. The debates brought up the issues of pressure on the justice system, monopolization of power through the adoption of legally dubious decisions by the Commission for Emergency Situations, language protection and NATO membership, Transnistrian settlement and preservation of peace on both banks of the Dniester, closure of TV channels and the desire of fugitive oligarchs to restore their influence in Moldova. There were other pertinent topics, but it was so unconvincing and shallow that at times it put to sleep. In her final speech, Sandu said that “there is a massive attack on democracy in the republic, but thieves must not win these elections”. Addressing the citizens, the president asked to give her the opportunity to “preserve Moldova’s European path”. On the contrary, Stoianoglo appealed to the head of state to admit mistakes and to accept the fact that she failed to fulfil her plans, hinting that four years ago he had personally believed in her good intentions and had almost voted for Sandu. At the same time, the former prosecutor suggested that the election campaign should be conducted in a correct format in order to preserve civil peace in the country. The overall impression is that the debates lacked some zest. Many people expected Stoianoglo to raise the most sensitive issues for Sandu that would unbalance her and make her mad, but for some reason he didn’t do this. Surely the supporters of the incumbent president were expecting something more dangerous, but it is what it is. These were the strategies of the election headquarters: apparently, the priority was maximum restraint and controllability, since due to the inexperience (in terms of TV debates) of both candidates, the risk of falling into a spin and losing control of the situation was high. Of course, Maia Sandu tried to be “ring leader” and looked more convincing, assertive and sometimes even aggressive. Meanwhile, several times the level of her emotional wringer came close to the red mark, threatening to turn into a scandal. The time regulations, in fact, became the “flame-arrester” that primarily kept the head of state within the format of the event. Alexandr Stoianoglo, to all appearances, did not set himself any super tasks, positioning himself as a self-confident legalist, who is still very unfamiliar with the politicians’ lexical skillfulness. Now the representatives of the opposing camps try to glorify the victory of their candidate, but it seemed to us, as outside observers, that there was no need to talk about anyone’s success. The caricatured and decorative nature of the event clearly showed how mawkish and annoying Moldovan public politics has become, and how far we are from democratic standards and modern political culture. Each of the presidential contenders made a tactical move to expand their electoral base. Maia Sandu showed with all her appearance that she did not count on the leftist and centrist electorate, but hoped for additional mobilization of the diaspora. Alexandr Stoianoglo, on the other hand, did not limit himself to loyal electoral groups and, without provoking conflicts with Sandu, tried to intrigue various categories of pro-European voters. We shall see what they have got in the end in just a week’s time. As the first round shows, forecasts in our very specific socio-political reality are a thankless pursuit. Citizens vote based not only on rational considerations, but also on irrational attitudes. On the eve of the first round, we think that the choice of people was significantly influenced by the “black swans”, which touched the most delicate strings of the Moldovan hearth. These are identity, language, religion and, finally, the national patrimony - the sale of land. Apparently, the Moldovan people are not ready to lose all this for the sake of the EU. A week before the second round, it is quite clear that “black swans” continue to circle over Moldova, and the appearance of a counter-candidate of Gagauz origin became an excuse for someone to exploit dirty electoral tricks aimed at awakening conflicts on interethnic grounds, which the state and society had already suffered from in the early 90s.