Is Sandu Reluctant to Assume New Powers?

In recent days, one of the top topics in the national media has been the initiative to grant the president additional and unprecedented powers. It has been proposed that Maia Sandu should take part in the procedure for dismissing the leadership of the National Bank and have the right to block decisions of Parliament. However, unlike other ideas put forward by government officials about increasing the role of the head of state in governing the country, this one has somehow not received unequivocal approval from the Presidency and the ruling party. Judging by how this topic is being presented in the press, it gives the impression that the authors are stubbornly ignoring potential risks in how the public may perceive it. Standard messages about the president and her new powers are being circulated in the information space. The Minister of Finance claims that this is a good idea given Sandu’s unquestionable authority, assuring that it has nothing to do with IMF requirements. The National Bank also considers it reasonable to involve the president in the process of changing its leadership. One might say that the entourage is asking its queen to accept a gift. Under normal circumstances, it would be logical to assume that the offering would be accepted and that the usual criticism from the opposition would simply be ignored. But this time, everything seems to be different. The Presidency has not yet commented on the matter, none of the affiliated experts or civil society representatives are doing any explanatory work about how timely and necessary this initiative is, and the MPs of the ruling party are giving rather ambiguous assessments, as if they are waiting for the issue to “ripen” on its own. However, it is not “ripening” well so far. All of our so-called “independent” media are asking questions about the reasons, but the topic is not being picked up either by the remaining anti-government outlets or by the opposition. A few specialized platforms have merely hinted at possible legal uncertainty if the president refuses to approve a decision to dismiss someone from the National Bank’s top management. But what kind of uncertainty is that? If she doesn’t sign it, that’s the end of the matter – no one will be dismissed. The new National Bank law is not just about granting Maia Sandu additional powers. The amendments aim to significantly change the power architecture of the central bank. The leadership will have to be appointed according to much stricter criteria, the mandates are reduced, and the dismissal procedure – in which the president’s role is defined – becomes significantly more complicated. The representatives of the ruling party developed all of this a year ago. The current draft is even dated December 2024 and has been sitting in a drawer for an entire year. What stopped PAS MPs from voting on it? After all, everyone knows how fast their “parliamentary printer” works. The point is that this is not an initiative of the ruling party at all, but rather recommendations from the IMF that have been around for several years. Their essence lies in creating conditions for the proper functioning of the National Bank, which must be a reasonably independent and autonomous body, not a politically driven structure, as has traditionally been the case here. It’s not only about preventing a repeat of the “billion-dollar theft” situation, when the government and the central bank acted in concert. The IMF wants to see a National Bank capable of resisting political pressure and consistently fulfilling the commitments outlined in letters of intent that later became requirements for our country to receive loan tranches. Everyone remembers how the head of the National Bank, Octavian Armasu, was dismissed in December 2023. At the time, the IMF’s representative in Moldova, Svetlana Cerovic, openly expressed concern about Parliament’s lightning-fast decision, made without “proper thorough investigation and assessment from a professional and legal standpoint.” The European Commission also delivered a negative opinion on this incident. By the way, Moldova’s commitments to the IMF did not concern only strengthening the independence of financial institutions in our country. Creating conditions to ensure the functionality of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office was also included in the documents signed by official representatives. And we all know what happened to the institution under the leadership of Veronica Dragalin. It was “strengthened” and “empowered” to such an extent that prosecutors began to leave. Year after year, our authorities kept feeding the IMF representatives promises that everything would be fulfilled and the necessary laws would be drafted. And they did draft them. In 2024, they reported that they had submitted to Parliament a bill that included the agreed-upon “double veto” principle for changing the central bank’s leadership – and then shelved it. Otherwise, how could they have pushed through the appointments of Anca Dragu and her deputy just three months later, in February of this year? After all, the amendments didn’t only complicate the dismissal procedure – they also imposed significant requirements on new appointees. The sabotage of commitments to give the National Bank real autonomy was largely the reason for the IMF funding program being halted, although this was never openly stated. Authorities were waiting for promises to be fulfilled after the elections. The deadlines came, and the government once again pretended to do everything on its part to satisfy external partners. The bill was submitted to Parliament and passed its first reading. However, before the vote, no one spoke about the importance of international commitments, including those to European partners – something that had been an axiom for every legislative act of the ruling party. Instead, the media have been circulating the topic of so-called additional powers for the president, hoping it will provoke public dissatisfaction, which the parliamentary opposition is simply obliged to take into account. Of course, there are deputies from opposition factions in the current Parliament who know and understand what the proposed bill is about. Ideally, the Socialist Party and the “Alternative” bloc could safely vote in favor today, fully aware of the trap PAS is setting. The only significant objection from the opposition, voiced by Ion Chicu and Diana Caraman, concerned the provision expanding the powers of the current PAS appointees on the Supervisory Board while reducing the powers of the Executive Committee. But that is already a minor detail. Now Maia Sandu can refuse further “usurpation of power” and speak out against it, since she is not being granted any real powers to appoint the leadership of the National Bank. The law could be blocked, even despite its passage in the first reading. When presenting the opinion of the relevant committee, Radu Marian very reluctantly expressed support for the bill. It is likely that the need to find sources to fill the leaky budget forced the ruling party to adopt an interim solution, in order to demonstrate openness to the IMF ahead of possible consultations in the coming weeks. As for the opposition, given recent trends of “constructive cooperation” and the involvement of former PAS opponents, namely the Socialists, in pro-European integration initiatives, doubts once again arise about its ability to act according to its own strategy and fulfill the promises made to voters.