Three August Dates That Reflect Contradictions of Moldova’s Statehood

Sergiu CEBAN, RTA: In the country’s political and historical calendar, August holds a special place. It seems to embody all the contradictions on which modern Moldova is built. The month encompasses three key dates – August 23, 27, and 31 – which are not merely commemorative or festive days but symbols that revive debates over identity, history, statehood, and geopolitical alignment. This is why the current month can be considered unique, as Moldova faces its complicated past and uncertain future in the most explicit way. The first date, August 23, represents a multilayered historical knot in itself. For some of our citizens, it is a day of remembrance for the victims of totalitarian regimes, linked to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As a result of the secret agreements, Bessarabia was separated from Romania, and, together with the left bank of the Dniester, the Moldavian SSR was established. This event marked the beginning of profound changes in the region’s fate, and its interpretation within the country remains unresolved to this day. Was it a return to the Soviet space or a traumatic act of losing national unity? There is still no single understanding within society. The second interpretation is linked to the Iasi-Chisinau Operation. For a significant number of people, August 23 is associated with liberation from Nazi occupation and the beginning of a new era, while for others, it symbolizes a return to an occupying regime and the re-Sovietization of Bessarabia. As evident from the new 12th-grade history textbook, it is the latter version that will be presented as the official narrative in the coming years. Thus, the very memory of August 23 divides society into diametrically opposed camps, and these differences are not purely historical in nature, as they deeply permeate Moldova’s present-day reality. Those who view the USSR as a liberator tend to associate themselves with the post-Soviet space and orient themselves toward modern Russia. Meanwhile, those who perceive this day as the restoration of occupation are more likely to identify with Romania and Europe, adopting an anti-system stance toward the Soviet past. The still unresolved Transnistrian conflict is one of the direct consequences of the lack of internal compromise over these historical episodes, both among the elites and within society. The existence of a de facto divided state, where the left bank lives according to the logic of the Russian historical narrative, while the right bank seeks a European identity demonstrates that the milestones of August in the 20th century remain alive and continue to shape the country’s political destiny. August 27th – Independence Day. Over three decades ago, this date was meant to symbolize a new beginning, an era of national revival, and hope for a better future. But more than thirty years later, this day evokes more bitterness than pride. Economic decline, depopulation, chronic political instability, and the lack of a sustainable development strategy have made independence, for many of our fellow citizens, synonymous with disappointment and a lack of prospects. Today, the main national holiday is hard to call unifying because, for part of society, it brings memories of unfulfilled dreams and illusions, while for another part, it is just a stepping stone towards a “bright European future.” One way or another, for the majority, unfortunately, this day is associated only with the fact that independence did not bring the expected social and economic prosperity. The emigration of millions, remittances from abroad as the main “artery” of the economy, and chronic dependence on external partners – all of this has made Moldova’s sovereignty more of a formality, but, worse still, vulnerable to external influence. The third August date is the 31st, Language Day. Since 2023, the authorities have enshrined the name of the state language in the Constitution, which is now Romanian. However, as is often the case in Moldova, not everything decided at the top is unconditionally accepted at the bottom. Therefore, this fundamental decision by the ruling party has not become the final word in the long-standing dispute for Moldovan society. According to the 2024 census, nearly half of the country’s residents still consider themselves speakers of the Moldovan language, and three-quarters identify as Moldovans. This means that the legal norm does not align with the widespread self-awareness of the citizens. In the end, we see a familiar dichotomy once again. For some, enshrining the Romanian language in the Constitution represents the restoration of historical justice, a definitive break with the Soviet past, the Moldovan language, and Moldovenism, as well as a path toward European integration. For others, it is a politically imposed decision that disregards the cultural self-perception of the majority, adopted to please Bucharest and a small segment of society. As a result, even the official language remains not only a means of communication but also an instrument of political struggle and the artificial construction of national identity. It turns out that the very foundation of modern Moldova is built on contradictions that have not only remained unresolved but are also taking on new forms. Unfortunately, our country exists in a situation of multiple identities, where some value stability and see the East as a natural partner, while others, including a significant part of the elites, associate themselves with Romania and the West, striving for European integration and a break with the Soviet legacy. This duality is not a temporary phenomenon – it is deeply rooted in the very structure of the modern Moldovan state. The lack of a shared perception of the country’s past makes it impossible to form a unified political nation. It is precisely this fragmentation and uncertainty that make Moldova extremely vulnerable in the current “moment of truth,” when answers to questions about historical milestones, identity, and the choice of its future must be clear and unambiguous. Yet, as Moldova approaches the fourth decade of its independence, it has still failed to find the right answers to these questions. To avoid an even deeper divide, both the elites and society must come to the realization that without acknowledging this duality and diversity, the prospect of establishing a solid “social contract” remains distant. If a compromise is ever reached, it will be a completely different Moldova. For now, however, the country remains hostage to endless disputes over its past and future, balancing on the brink of a major rupture.