Hidden Constitutional Reform: Sandu Wants More Power

Given Maia Sandu’s unrestrained ambitions and the ruling party’s fear of losing the autumn elections, attempts are made to redistribute power in the country, effectively turning a parliamentary republic into a presidential one

Over the past week, pro-government media seemed to be rehearsing the launch of an election campaign – not for the upcoming parliamentary elections, but for the presidential race. The entire cohort of grant-funded media outlets and bloggers, as well as MPs from the ruling party, were singing praises to their informal leader. Maia Sandu was glorified against the backdrop of the looming threat of the election of an unwelcomed radical, George Simion, across the Prut River reviving a narrative that she would easily win a presidential race in Romania. Candidates from traditional parties like Crin Antonescu, Nicușor Dan, or Elena Lasconi were openly mocked. After all, it was ‘obvious’ that their personal stature and charisma were no match while our Madam President was presented as one of Europe’s top leaders, in a league with Macron or Zelensky. In short, the pride of the nation, even if she lost the last election at home. It’s clear that all this praise is aimed strictly at a domestic audience. It’s also obvious that Maia Sandu remains the only functioning engine on the PAS political train, and the party’s hopes of holding onto power rest solely on her. But the true goals of this propaganda campaign became apparent just recently, when plans were revealed to carry out a hidden constitutional reform that would grant Sandu unprecedented powers. The well-known PAS MP Lilian Carp announced the submission to parliament of a package of legislative initiatives aimed at redistributing powers, primarily over the security and law enforcement agencies. The explanatory note even stated that the idea originated from them. So, the proposal is to adopt new laws ‘on national security’, ‘on crisis management’, and, at the same time, to amend a number of other existing legislative acts. Under the guise of ‘objective changes in the security sphere’, the plan envisions a complete reformatting of the current governance hierarchy in favor of the presidency. Moreover, the scope of the law — and therefore the de facto control of the presidential administration — would extend not only to all national and local executive authorities, including those in Gagauzia, but also to all organizations regardless of ownership type, the private sector, and even individual citizens. After all, any of them could be linked to national security issues or possess strategically important resources. And it will be the presidency or structures under its control that will make that assessment. To grasp the scale of the proposal, it’s worth highlighting a provision that defines the capabilities of the “security sector” being shaped under the presidency. In times of crisis or other emergency situations, it allows for actions that go beyond the legal powers set out in the current regulatory framework on national defense and state security. This includes ensuring the continuity of governance, participating in intervention operations to prevent crisis escalation, eliminating destabilizing factors, restoring public and constitutional order, and more. The president’s powers under the proposed law are outlined in nineteen points, while the parliament’s powers are limited to just five. The head of state would not only exercise overall leadership in ensuring national security, coordinating and overseeing the activities of the entire relevant sector, but would also promote international cooperation in this field, initiate strategic partnerships and joint (military) exercises, as well as other targeted activities. The core elements of PAS’s initiative, through which the president would be able to exercise these expanded powers, include the existing Supreme Security Council and newly proposed structures: the National Commission for Crisis Management and the National Center for Crisis Situation Management. The expansion of the powers and functions of the Security Council in this case is more than expected. This currently advisory body is set to be granted executive and oversight authority over the agencies and institutions responsible for or involved in ensuring national security. Its decisions would be binding for all state structures. Moreover, the Security Council would have the right to demand that the private sector take measures to protect national security in areas such as justice, the economy, energy, finance, and critical infrastructure. Failure to comply with or obstruction of the council’s decisions would be considered a criminal offense, punishable under the article on ‘vigilantism’ (unauthorized exercise of authority). Essentially, it would become a supreme body above all other executive structures. In such a setup, any talk of adhering to constitutional provisions and the principle of separation of powers would be meaningless. As for the National Commission for Crisis Management, it will be formally chaired and convened by the prime minister. However, if a crisis is deemed to ‘pose threat to national security’ or ‘affect internal stability’, its management will fall under the jurisdiction of the Security Council and the president. Meanwhile, the head of the National Center for Crisis Situation Management will be appointed and dismissed by the prime minister, but only with the mandatory approval of the chair of the Security Council – that is, the president. Given the pattern of recent years, when states of emergency have been declared in the country for a wide range of reasons, it’s easy to assume that all upcoming crises will be categorized as ‘extraordinary’ and ‘threatening national security’. Consequently, all power in the country would be concentrated in the hands of Maia Sandu. On top of all this, the anti-disinformation center Patriot would also be placed under her direct authority. In essence, a new power vertical is being built around Sandu in case a non-aligned parliament is elected. Carp himself even confirmed that the presidential administration was the ‘birthplace’ of the draft laws. Explanations for the need to grant additional powers to the head of state have already been given by MPs, the prime minister, and Sandu’s office. All are attempting to mask what amounts to a power grab in the country, claiming that ‘special’ times require special measures, and that the current president’s competencies will be needed not only in the military and security spheres, but across all areas of life – energy, transport, food security. They also argue that since she is the guarantor of the constitution, and considering the results of last year’s referendum, she must personally guarantee the country’s pro-European course. And how could that be done without expanded powers? The referendum itself, in light of all these ideas, now seems like a childish prank. At the same time, some MPs acknowledge Maia Sandu’s dissatisfaction with her current powers, for example, when her requests, voiced from various platforms, are not swiftly carried out by the relevant structures. The example of Vladimir Zelensky’s near-absolute power in Kyiv has clearly been a long-standing temptation and source of frustration for our leader, and the fragile position of PAS ahead of the elections simply pushed her toward decisive action. Therefore, the party is set on quickly adopting the entire ‘new reform’ package. Yesterday, the parliament hastily organized ‘public consultations’ on it to meet the formalities of democratic oversight. The moral of this story is that our country is rapidly moving away from democratic principles, coming dangerously close to authoritarianism. The permanence of power and the inability of opposition forces to counteract its abuses may lead to a very different Moldova by autumn.