Opinion: “Moldova’s Sovereignty Remains a Question Without an Answer”

Thirty-five years ago, the Declaration of Sovereignty was adopted, serving as a precursor to the proclamation of Moldova’s independence. Today, this important historical milestone, despite attempts by both the government and the opposition to exploit it for electoral purposes, evokes little emotion among the population

Sergiu CEBAN, RTA: On June 23, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Moldavian SSR voted in favor of the Declaration of Sovereignty. 280 out of 281 deputies supported it, which at the time symbolized a consensus around the idea of breaking away from Moscow’s jurisdiction. This event marked an important step toward the proclamation of independence in August 1991. The declaration not only established the supremacy of national legislation over that of the Soviet Union, but also proclaimed the republic’s right to independently determine its foreign and domestic policy, establish its own citizenship, and form its own governing institutions. It became Moldova’s first serious statement of itself as an independent actor in international relations. Although the day of the proclamation of sovereignty is not a national holiday or a day off, it remains a milestone in the country’s history. Nevertheless, as practice shows, this date no longer inspires significant civic engagement or enthusiasm. For most citizens, June 23 is an ordinary day that does not serve as a reason for celebration, let alone political reflection. For participants in the parliamentary election race, however, the anniversary of the declaration proved quite timely: each tried to use it to their advantage. In the evening, a pro-government “March of Sovereignty” took place in the center of the capital, culminating in a grandiose speech by Maia Sandu. The president described the 1990 act as “one of the first great victories of the national liberation movement”, emphasizing that it marked the beginning of a new identity for the Moldovan people. According to her, unity and strategic direction are what we all need, and only as part of the EU can Moldova be guaranteed peace and the strengthening of its sovereignty. It is clear that for the current government, the European choice and sovereignty are not contradictions but rather complementary principles – though this interpretation is certainly open to question. The opposition, on the other hand, sees this as external subordination and a loss of sovereignty in favor of supranational structures. Therefore, on the eve of the “official” march, a rally was held in front of the parliament building, organized by the Party of Socialists and other opposition groups. Although the event was formally dedicated to the anniversary of the declaration, most of the time was spent criticizing the government, accusing PAS of destroying the economy, causing rising prices, eroding national identity, and creating geopolitical dependence on the West. In addition, the rally featured the reading of the “Declaration on the Sovereign Policy of the Republic of Moldova,” whose authors insist that national interests must take priority. Special emphasis was placed on neutrality and spiritual sovereignty. In essence, the Moscow-oriented forces used the event as a trial platform to align all participants into a single large electoral bloc, which will use the theme of sovereignty as a tool to mobilize the electorate. Despite loud slogans and symbolic gestures, neither event sparked significant public response. Critics claim that PAS brought in public sector employees by directive, and that the reported figure of 10,000 participants was highly exaggerated. Overall, the sparse turnout and the apathy of those present, along with the sense of formality, suggest that the concept of sovereignty has lost its emotional resonance in the public consciousness. Today, it is no longer associated with struggle, self-determination, or hope for a better future. For a large portion of citizens, it has become an abstract political notion, devoid of personal meaning or tangible benefits. This is largely due to the public’s fatigue with the endless political tug-of-war between East and West, a struggle Moldova has been caught in since gaining independence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, our country repeatedly found itself at the center of geopolitical tensions. While the proclamation of sovereignty in 1990 was a step toward freedom, by 1992 we were already embroiled in an armed conflict. The Transnistrian region, with a predominantly Russian-speaking population, rejected Chisinau’s political course and declared its own independence – leading to bloodshed and an unresolved territorial dispute that persists to this day. This conflict became the first major test for the newly formed state, demonstrating how fragile independence can be when society is divided and international actors pursue fundamentally opposing agendas. Since then, the Moldovan state has been in a constant search for balance between the orientation of part of its elites toward Russia and another part toward integration with the West. The geopolitical pendulum swings back and forth, and, as last year’s referendum showed, for over three decades we have still been unable to definitively decide which direction to take once and for all. Today, real sovereignty is understood not only as the right to make decisions independently, but also as the ability to implement them in practice. Therefore, in the context of economic dependency, energy crises, demographic collapse, and weak state institutions, even the loudest calls for sovereignty appear hypocritical and fail to resonate with the public or political sphere. The Transnistrian conflict, strained relations with Russia, and the constant need for assistance from the West – all of this collectively calls into question the country’s actual independence. One can debate at length how much today’s sovereignty aligns with the spirit of the 1990 Declaration. Some argue that joining the EU is a way to strengthen independence. Others believe it merely replaces one center of influence with another. But one thing is clear: the topic of sovereignty – like many others – has become an electoral slogan, used solely for campaign purposes. Where it ends up after the elections is not hard to guess. Perhaps it is time not just to hold empty marches for the occasion, but to reflect on what it truly means to be a sovereign state in the 21st century – in an era of globalization, international instability, and transnational threats. Because today’s Moldova, in reality, still faces the same dilemmas as it did 35 years ago: who we are, whom we align with, and what legacy we leave to future generations. A society exhausted by prolonged geopolitical uncertainty and internal division is unlikely to demonstrate high mobilization, and against the backdrop of persistent problems and heavy reliance on external assistance, genuine strengthening of sovereignty is nearly unattainable. Most likely, in the absence of internal consensus and stable institutions, the country will remain in a prolonged state of limbo – still without a clear answer to the question of what it truly means to be a sovereign Moldova.