Moldova’s New Government: Hopes vs. Reality

The appointment of the Munteanu government does not mark the beginning of a new era, but rather yet another redecoration of the existing system. However, even the most experienced figure at the head of the cabinet will not be able to solve the fundamental problem – the absence of a coherent strategy among our political elites

We are gradually becoming acquainted with the personal composition of the new government now taking shape. In our country, such an event is traditionally perceived not merely as another rotation within the executive branch, but as an ambitious bid to reboot the system. However, the current political scenario surrounding the appointment of the new cabinet appears to once again reproduce painfully familiar patterns with loud promises and an endless expectation of a “miracle” coming from outside. After consultations with the parliamentary factions, Maia Sandu signed a decree nominating businessman and economist Alexandru Munteanu for the post of prime minister. In practical terms, this is merely a formality. As the head of state herself admitted, she personally called Munteanu and offered him to lead the new cabinet of ministers. This detail speaks volumes not only about the nature of the current political system, but also about the way the Constitution is perceived – as a document that can be bypassed whenever “higher goals” are invoked, allowing key appointments to be made outside the bounds of formal competences. However, the experience of recent years is full of similar examples, so it has long ceased to surprise anyone. The Presidency has de facto become the center of decision-making, while the parliament and the government often serve as institutional decorations and loyal executors. Support from the PAS majority faction is guaranteed in advance, and therefore the issue of approving the new cabinet is nothing more than a pure formality. After the official nomination, Munteanu announced the launch of consultations with the business community, the civic sector, and representatives of the academic sphere to prepare the future government’s program. The initial wording appears encouraging. However, we all have considerable experience observing how such “inclusive processes” in national politics quickly devolve into behind-the-scenes arrangements. The new prime minister has extremely limited time: only two weeks to present the cabinet lineup and the government’s program. We may reasonably assume that the document which is supposed to define the country’s development strategy for the coming years is most likely already prepared or is being finalized within a narrow circle of experts close to PAS. The new prime minister will most likely rely on the ruling party’s pre-election program. Naturally, it is filled with bold slogans about a “European Moldova”, a “prosperous economy”, and a “fair justice system”. The problem is that behind these phrases there is increasingly less concrete substance. Public expectations of the authorities have likely long exceeded their real capabilities. If we recall the program of the previous Dorin Recean government – “Prosperous, Safe, European Moldova” – even the most seasoned expert would struggle to say which of these points was genuinely implemented. Munteanu, a man from the business sector, is undoubtedly associated with certain expectations of pragmatism and a professional grasp of our reality. But how far can this experience really take him, and will a purely “business-oriented” approach be sufficient to address the structural problems of a country whose state apparatus, judicial system, and economy suffer from a chronic crisis of trust – the answer is more than obvious. PAS leaders do not even attempt to hide the fact that the choice of Munteanu was dictated by the need to efficiently manage the €1.9 billion package of EU economic support. While external assistance is undoubtedly necessary, such unabashed, almost greedy focus of our elites on “draining” financial flows exposes the true priorities of power from the outset and naturally provokes disappointment. Moldova has repeatedly faced situations where European aid dissolved within layers of intermediaries and bureaucratic chains, producing no long-term effect for society. If the main KPI for Munteanu’s government becomes “fund absorption” rather than institutional reforms, there is a high likelihood that the country will continue to exist in a state of utter despair. The first challenge the new government will face is the economic situation, which, to put it mildly, looks alarming. GDP growth is minimal, the investment climate is deteriorating, and the outflow of labor continues. Agriculture, once a national pride, is losing ground, giving way to mass imports. Industry shows no signs of revival, while small businesses continue to struggle with unpredictable tax regulations and bureaucratic hurdles. The main source of foreign currency inflows into the country, as it has been for the past three decades, remains remittances from migrant workers. Theoretically, a sharp economic leap is still possible, but only through a deep and radical overhaul of state governance. Only under such circumstances could the country hope for even a modest inflow of foreign investment. However, given an inflexible bureaucratic system, an unstable judiciary, a political monopoly, and regional turbulence, no one seriously expects such a scenario to happen. One of the key pillars on which PAS built its political program in both 2021 and 2025 was judicial reform. Yet, after years in power, even the party’s own supporters are forced to admit that the reform has essentially failed and the system remains unchanged. What Munteanu can do about this is totally unclear. The ruling regime has simply seized control over the judiciary, while the loud promises of “purging” and “relaunching” the justice system have remained mere slogans. Clearly, this state of affairs undermines trust not only within the country but also among external partners, who link financial assistance to tangible progress in upholding the rule of law. The internal polarization is no less problematic, which has become a chronic illness in Moldova. Society remains divided along lines of identity, language, and geopolitical preference, among others. Under such circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds to speak of any “national consensus”. The presidency and the ruling party place their primary bet on pro-European mobilization, which automatically excludes a significant portion of the population that favors neutrality or even holds pro-Russian views. As a result, the country continues to live in a state of ongoing sociopolitical confrontation. One of the most serious challenges to the European path and to negotiations with Brussels remains the Transnistrian issue. The authorities declare their intention to synchronize reintegration with the course toward the EU, but in practice no one really understands how these two processes are supposed to coexist. Without a clear plan and political consensus, the project of a “united European Moldova” risks remaining nothing more than a beautiful metaphor, while any attempt to force one of these processes may trigger unpredictable consequences for internal stability. Issues of foreign policy and European integration will, in all likelihood, remain under the direct control of the presidency and advisers connected to external centers. For the future prime minister, this is a limitation, since decisions in the foreign policy sphere will not be made by the government, but in Maia Sandu’s office. On the one hand, this ensures unified leadership, but on the other, it turns the cabinet into a “bureau for carrying out instructions”, deprived of independence and institutional weight. Thus, the new government faces a set of rather complex tasks that require not just detailed descriptions in a program, but carefully developed systemic solutions. For now, however, it seems that the main goal of the authorities is to maintain control, preserve their ratings, and continue to shield themselves with the illusion of the “irreversibility of the European course”. At the same time, the experience of recent years shows that Moldova is moving not toward reform, but toward a managed stagnation, where each new government is merely an organic continuation of the previous one with new loud promises, but the same results. Therefore, the outlook is far from encouraging. The start of the Munteanu government is not the beginning of a new era, but rather another redecoration of the existing system. Even the most experienced figure at the head of the cabinet will not solve the fundamental problem – the lack of strategy among our political elites; European money will not replace internal development, and the rhetoric of a “united and European Moldova” will not conceal the country’s actual situation.