Expert: PAS Found Its Perfect Scapegoat Amid the Scandals

By all accounts, the acute phase of the domestic political crisis in Moldova has finally passed. The ruling party has managed to defuse public discontent and secure the foundation for its survival, while at the same time sowing discord within the ranks of the opposition

It seemed that, until recently, public attention had been completely absorbed by the ruling party’s misdeeds. Not only executive branch agencies but also members of parliament and the president’s office were implicated in the abuses committed by PAS and its cronies. New revelations of the political elite’s attempts to enrich themselves at the expense of an increasingly impoverished citizenry kept the scandal spinning, which could well have escalated into a full-blown crisis for the regime, threatening to cause it to lose control of the situation. With proper coordination of the opposition’s forces and resources, the media, and opinion leaders, it would have been entirely possible to spark mass protests demanding a shake-up of the government through early elections. It goes without saying that such scenarios are anticipated. To mitigate such risks and threats, crisis management is activated, which is exactly what happened in our case. Naive monarchism, “Good tsar, bad boyars”, was chosen as the ideological foundation for the plan of self-preservation. First, Maia Sandu publicly distanced herself from the PAS abuses that had flooded the media landscape, and then a “democratic” process of purging the “bad boyars” was launched. As it happened, Prime Minister Alexandru Munteanu, who had been brought in as an effective manager, was chosen as the scapegoat in this process. No wrongdoing was found on Munteanu’s part. His reputation remained unblemished but he was the one who had to step down. The calculation is trite and cynical. A complete change of government is not a quick process; it involves a whole series of steps that the public will not be able to ignore. First, the drama surrounding the prime minister’s resignation, followed by the equally high-profile story of selecting his successor. A high-profile manifesto from a potential candidate. After that, all the stages prescribed by the Constitution must be followed: the president’s consultations with parliamentary factions, the nomination of a candidate, the drafting of the new government’s program, its presentation to parliament, and then the solemn swearing-in of the new cabinet of ministers. If we look at how all these stages were carried out this time, unhurriedly and with great focus, and how the content of the policy documents and the events themselves took shape, it becomes clear that the PAS strategists tried to squeeze as much as possible out of this “reset of power”, which, of course, is not a reset at all. Yet another protégé of Maia Sandu, with the same old team and the same old plans. Yet another position for a former presidential adviser (Minister of Health). After all, it’s not the result that matters here, but the process itself. For comparison, let’s imagine a scenario involving a simple replacement of four ministers. The president, at the prime minister’s suggestion, dismisses them from office and appoints new ones. They take the oath of office, and that’s it. Not interesting at all. That’s why a full-fledged, multi-episode political spectacle was staged. Consultations with the parliamentary factions were scheduled by the president’s office with a week’s lead time and lasted a full two days. Ten days later, the candidate presented his platform – a 147-page document. Not exactly concise, especially when compared to Alexandru Munteanu’s 15-page platform. There’s plenty to discuss, and it serves as a demonstration of the new prime minister’s “more thorough and responsible approach”. The ten-hour debate in parliament was a distinct and one of the most significant episodes of the political spectacle, in which the entire parliamentary opposition was drawn into the fray. Members of the opposition saw this as an opportunity to take the floor to launch attacks and showcase their oratory skills but the target of their attacks proved to be an awkward one. Essentially, there is nothing to criticize Tofan for. Consequently, the result was a “constructive” discussion, at the end of which not even all opposition deputies were in agreement. Only the Communists and Socialists, with the exception of one of their colleagues, voted against the approval of the new government. Meanwhile, the parties led by Costiuc, Usatii, and “Alternativa” abstained, leaving the impression of tacit acquiescence to the scenario imposed by the authorities. The cheap PR continued even on the government’s first day in office. Another 15-minute public address by Vasile Tofan. A telling example: a call to cut costs on ministers’ uniforms, banquets, and business trips, and to submit proposals for budget savings to restore public trust. This is all just for show – the kind of thing that makes for nice headlines in the government-controlled media. But on the other side of the scale are the real issues: gas rate hikes, an announcement of a sharp cut in energy subsidies, the continuation of the ongoing reform of civil servant pay and plans to raise taxes, and the further pursuit of an anti-Russian course by terminating humanitarian agreements within the CIS. To all this, we should add the refusal to raise taxes on banks (what else would you expect from a banker-turned-prime minister?), as well as the statement that Romanian citizenship is a sign of good faith for Moldovan citizens. There will be plenty more political populism from Vasile Tofan. It would seem inappropriate to criticize him before he reaches the 100-day mark, so PAS will have plenty of time to regroup and enter a new electoral cycle. Let’s take another look at the outcome of this high-profile political crisis. The ruling party managed to weather the acute phase of the domestic political crisis in Moldova, retain its full hold on power, and secure the foundation for its survival, while at the same time sowing discord within the ranks of the opposition. It must be acknowledged that recent events have also demonstrated a certain degree of success on the part of the political elite in Chisinau in aligning the country with Western democratic standards and values. We are talking here about legitimate tools for retaining power, whereby specific individuals are thrown into the fray to maintain the ruling party’s image and are then consigned to oblivion. Such political spectacles divert public attention from pressing problems and instances of abuse, creating the illusion of change while preventing mass protests. A striking example of such political skill on the part of those in power is Foggy Albion, where, almost simultaneously with Moldova, the Labor Party reshuffled the government by appointing a new prime minister. However, of course, we are still a long way from the British high standards of “political culture”.