“Constructive Opposition” in the New Parliament

The program and composition of the government presented by the prime ministerial candidate has drawn little criticism from the new parliamentary opposition

A constructive attitude – that’s one way to describe the current climate in government-opposition relations. After the official announcement of the political structure of the new parliament, a rather paradoxical situation has emerged. With few exceptions, all the parliamentary forces that not long ago were fiercely competing in the elections are now demonstrating caution and a willingness to engage further with the ruling party. It all began with the decision to grant the right to open the first session to Zinaida Greceanii, a deputy from the Patriotic Bloc. After the expected refusal of Vladimir Voronin to take on this role, PAS had an immediate opportunity to demonstrate its full dominance. The next oldest deputy, Nicolae Botgros, quickly expressed his readiness to perform this honorary ritual. However, the ruling party decided otherwise – and in such a way that it put the maestro in a rather awkward position, forcing him to decline and cite family circumstances. The proposal for Zinaida Greceanii to return, even temporarily, to the chair of the speaker received a positive response from the Socialists and other opposition forces. As a result, a rather relaxed atmosphere prevailed in parliament, sharply contrasting with the tension of the election campaign. It is difficult to say what contributed more to this decision: the fear of embarrassment due to Botgros’s lack of procedural experience, or the desire to expedite the process in favor of Maia Sandu. In any case, the “gesture of goodwill” was appreciated. Things escalated further. Igor Grosu’s announcement about handing over leadership of half of the parliamentary committees to the opposition, along with hints at a willingness to give the controversial politician Renato Usatii the position of deputy in the Committee on Security, Defense, and Public Order, sparked an outcry among pro-government experts and journalists. Why would PAS, with a comfortable majority of 55 seats, do this? Why not take a bold, detached stance toward the opposition, as the president did during consultations with the factions – a few minutes of ritual, and that’s it? Or is this simply the old “good cop, bad cop” tactic at play? The courtesy and politeness of the prime ministerial candidate, Alexandru Munteanu, toward opposition deputies truly added a touch of idyll to this political spectacle. Even Vasilii Costiuc, who has recently been a troublemaker, managed to spend a whole hour in conversation with Munteanu, put forward a series of proposals for the future government, and reaffirm his openness to cooperation. Overall, the very “program” of Munteanu’s government contributed to the businesslike nature of discussions with the opposition. Its lack of substantive content, paired with the expectation of little meaningful criticism, and the demonstration of willingness to consider the constructive ideas of the authorities’ opponents, made this openness appealing and impressive to almost everyone. For example, even Voronin spoke of having had an interesting conversation with Munteanu, whom the former president had not known but wished to meet. In the end, the Communists also did not react negatively – only skepticism, flavored with the condescending sarcasm that Lenin’s followers invariably direct at their successors after sixteen years in opposition. The leaders of the “Alternative” bloc were also pleased with the outcome of their meetings with the future prime minister. It went so far that Alexandru Stoianoglo expressed support for plans to continue judicial reform through vetting. Renato Usatii’s faction, after consultations, even called Alexandru Munteanu a “super-candidate.” Criticism was directed only at members of the team he proposed, and mostly due to the lack of official resumes. Such rhetoric is more typical of a participant in the ruling coalition, which is understandable given the number of positions offered to “Our Party” in parliament. A note of positivity also came from independent deputy Vasilii Tarlev, who spoke about his acquaintance with Munteanu and their “fruitful conversation.” It should be noted that none of the parliamentary forces indicated a willingness to vote for the proposed government. Some allowed the prime ministerial candidate to consider their recommendations, while others, openly negotiating, asked for the vote to be postponed slightly. No one spoke of threats to the democratic future due to intentions to tighten online political censorship, nor did anyone point out the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the police through the appointment of the former deputy interior minister as justice minister, which contradicts European practice. It must be acknowledged that the current parliament lacks a principled and irreconcilable opposition and, therefore, presents no direct political risks for the ruling party. Re-elected parliamentary speaker Igor Grosu, following the marathon consultations with the prime ministerial candidate, brazenly revealed a “state secret”: off-camera, opposition forces confirmed their willingness to cooperate and, in the eyes of the ruling party, thus shared responsibility. The reasoning is clear: at a minimum, no criticism or sabotage is expected from the opposition during the first hundred days of the new government. At maximum, the opposition may participate in decisions that the authorities will push forward under the banner of bringing the country closer to the European Union. Even within PAS, it is acknowledged that many of these decisions will be far from popular. All current so-called opponents of the authorities in parliament are aware of one truth: the next electoral campaign begins the day after the results of the previous one are announced. From this perspective, the opposition has clearly lost the first month of the new parliamentary race, having abandoned uncompromising struggle and engaged in a questionable venture of cooperation with the authorities, who have never been known for their ability to listen to and consider alternative opinions.