And some people would likely have thought that I would want to talk about the United States Presidential Election, with only one week away. But instead, I would like to turn to another presidential election: Moldova. You see, in my view, everything that needs to be said about Russia’s alleged involvement in the American election has already been said, so I personally believe that it is not worth my time nor yours for me to simply regurgitate the shriveled up talking points spewed out by a host of political pundits who have no original thoughts of their own. Alternatively, however, I would like to focus on the first direct presidential election in Moldova in over twenty years, which could have lasting impacts on the small nation of three and a half million.
First, it is important to note that this election has already occurred…sort of. The election was officially held this past Sunday, October 30th, but because no one candidate got a majority of the votes, there will be a second round of voting on November 13th. Already, Moldova is in fairly uncertain territory; since a constitutional revision in 2000, the president of the country had been indirectly elected through parliament, and it was only earlier this year that a constitutional court struck this provision down, reinstating direct presidential elections. So regardless of the outcome, this election is also very important in Moldovan history as the reinstatement of the people having a direct say in who becomes their president in over twenty years, with the last direct election in Moldova occurring in 1996.
However, this election is incredibly pivotal for other reasons, particularly because of the two candidates who have garnered the most votes, as they represent two wildly different paths Moldova could go down. First, there is Igor Dodon, a candidate from the pro-Russian Socialist Party in Moldova, who was able to garner 48.5% of the vote, only narrowly missing the 50% threshold; the next closest candidate was Maia Sandu of the newly-formed pro-European party, Action and Solidarity, who gained 38.2% of the vote. These two candidates, both proposing their own distinct visions for the country’s future. Traditionally, much of the power in Moldova is held by the parliament, and the president’s main role has been to appoint judges and set foreign policy; however, due to this being the first popular presidential election in quite a long time, some experts believe that whoever becomes president later this November could hold more authority and influence than they normally have had at their disposal.
Since independence, Moldova, much like many of the less authoritarian former Soviet states, has had to perform a balancing act between Russia and the West. The country has many historical ties to Romania, which is a member of the European Union, and since the formation of a pro-EU coalition in 2009, it has been an official goal of the government to eventually join this body. Moldova, along with Georgia and Ukraine, signed an association agreement with the EU in 2014. However, Russia has always held a lot of sway in the country, not the least of which being the Russian soldiers stationed in Transnistria, an unrecognized breakaway republic on Moldova’s eastern border across the Dniester River. There is also a significant Russian minority in the country, which keeps the small Eastern European nation on Moscow’s radar. Whereas the atmosphere in Ukraine in recent years has become virulently anti-Russian, the population of Moldova has been continuously split over whether to pursue integration with the EU or deeper ties with Russia; for such a small country, there is definitely a lot of variation in this regard.
If these election results are any indication, however, the attitude in the country, while still divided, has been leaning towards a pro-Russian stance. If Igor Dodon had managed to wrangle out 1.5 more percentage points, then there would not have to be a second round, and he would have won the presidency outright. His closest competitor is over 10 percentage points behind him, and recent opinion polls in the country seem to be in his favor. This result could be due to the increasing unpopularity of the nominally pro-European government, which is largely seen as innately corrupt. Last year, Moldova was thrown into turmoil when it was revealed that in 2014 over one billion dollars, or about one eighth of the poorest country in Europe’s GDP, went missing from the banks. This led to constant street protests and the replacement of six different prime ministers in the span of a single year. Anti-corruption laws and reforms have since been passed, but deep distrust of the government among the people has remained.
Enter Igor Dodon, the pro-Russian candidate who has denounced the current government as corrupt and oligarchic. Campaigning against the Moldovan establishment and the pro-European views that they hold, he promises change. And to Moldovans disillusioned with the government, change does seem appealing. His opponent, Sandu, has also campaigned against the corruption of the government, but due to her similar views on Europe, she may be given less legitimacy as an opponent against the elite. But change in and of itself is not inherently a good thing. As seen in this article by the Daily Beast, Dodon, if president, would not just want to build closer relations with Russia; he would model his leadership styles after Vladimir Putin. Obviously, the article is trying to paint the candidate in a poor light, but if you look at his words, it is somewhat difficult to misinterpret them: “In the current anarchy that we see around, Moldova immediately needs an iron fist, a strong vertical of power”; “I will run Moldova just the same way Putin runs Russia, I assure you”; and the list goes on.
To anyone who is even mildly familiar with Eastern European politics of the last decade, this situation should remind you of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. Although Dodon may be more blunt about his positions, Yanukovych came to power after campaigning in 2010 against the ineffective pro-European government in Kyiv. After he came to power, he diverted power from parliament to the presidency, strengthened the Ukrainian oligarchy and corruption, and developed closer relations with Russia. Ultimately, after many anti-European and anti-democratic policies, he was deposed in the Euromaidan Revolution in 2014. The conditions in which Yanukovych came to power were controversial, and revealed tensions between the Western and pro-Russian influences in Ukraine, just as this current election in Moldova is putting these same tensions under the national spotlight.
Am I saying that Dodon, if elected, will be overthrown in a popular revolt? Not necessarily. But it would remain a possibility. Ultimately, the election of Yanukovych led to more corruption, and undermined democracy in Ukraine as a whole; and with a polarized population, moving abruptly away from democratic principles just recently after the reinstatement of popular elections would be a dangerous move. And that is exactly what voting for Dodon would be. As a man who has explicitly threatened to walk back on the EU Association Agreement, feed power from the parliament to him a la Yanukovych, and institute a Putinist style of leadership, he should be taken very seriously.
Of course, his alternative, Sandu, does not seem to be a great candidate. Knowing the incredibly flawed political structure of Moldova, she would likely not be able to enact the changes and reforms that Moldova desperately needs. But she is much preferable to a man who has threatened the (albeit weak) democratic institutions of the country and could potentially initiate the coming of a dictatorship in the country, just as Yanukovych attempted to do. There is something inherently wrong with the Moldovan government, and it needs to be changed; Igor Dodon, however, would change it for the worst.
Newborn Republic 