Politics of Moldova

The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative
legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance
other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of
governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation
process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova’s adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President’s endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the
Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state’s appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary
majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In
the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova’s shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991.

Dans la presse internationale ou dans les travaux universitaires qui lui sont consacrés, la Moldavie est le plus souvent présentée comme un pays déchiré entre le monde russe et l'occident. Le plus fréquemment, c'est l'histoire ou les études culturelles qui sont convoquées pour expliquer cette situation. Les difficultés de la Moldavie seraient en grande partie liées à une fatalité historique, une irrationalité inhérente à cette partie de l'Europe. Loin de nous l'idée de nier tout déterminant culturel ou historique, mais il nous semble essentiel de d'éviter l'écueil qui constituerait à expliquer la situation de la Moldavie uniquement par la confrontation de passions identitaires antagonistes ou par le poids d'une histoire écrasante rendant le pays inapte à un fonctionnement démocratique. Cela constituerait une forme d'orientalisation[1] souvent plus éclairante sur les aprioris des analystes que sur la situation réelle du pays. En prenant conscience de ce biais, cet article se propose d'envisager une grille de lecture et un appareil théorique différent pour expliciter les hésitations géopolitiques de la Moldavie depuis son indépendance.

Despite certain progress Moldova reached since gaining visa-free regime with the EU and signing of the Association Agreement, it is geopolitically vulnerable. Pro-European governmental coalitions remain fragile elements of the Moldovan political system. Recent developments prove that internal political fight, split between pro-European and pro-Russian parts of the population, complications in the relations with the secessionist region of Transnistria and unstable situation in the autonomous territorial unit Gagauz Yeri can make the situation even more complicated.

Der Konflikt um die abtrünnige moldauische Region Transnistrien hat seine Wurzeln in jahrhunderteweit in die Vergangenheit zurückreichenden Entwicklungen, der politischen Ökonomie der späten Moldauischen Sozialistischen Sowjetrepublik (MSSR) innerhalb der Sowjetunion sowie der politökonomischen Entwicklung der unabhängigen Republik Moldau seit 1991. Dieser Artikel thematisiert die Entwicklung der Region Transnistrien im Lichte von Zentrum-Peripherie-Beziehungen, der politischen Ökonomie des Gebiets und der moldauischen Nationalstaatsbildung aus einer kritischen Perspektive.

Ein recht häufig benutztes Motiv in der diplon"ratischen Sprache des späten Mittelalters und der beginnenden Ner.rzeit vr'ar vor dem Hintergrund der osmanischen Bedrohung: Das chrisl liche Abendland (bzw. Europa) sei von Glaubensleinden unrzingelt, die sie fortwährend be-sttirmten. Beschützt u'erde die lateinische Kultr-rrgemeinschaft an ihren Grenzen durch Völ-ker, deren grLrndlegende existenzielle Funktion in der Glaubens-, Ziviiisations-und Kultur-verteidigung 1iege. An den äußersten Enden des Abendlandes ausharrend. seien sie wie Boll-werke oder Vormauern der Christenheit bzw. der jeweiligen dahinter liegenden Länder. An den Grundgedanken der Dornir.ro-Efltkt-Theorie anknüpfbnd lautete eine immer wiederkeh-rende Botschafl der an der Schwelle vorr-r Mittelalter zur Frühen Neuzeit lbrmulierten Boll-werksargumentationen: Gerieten die ungarischen, r,enezianischen, polnischen, kroatischen etc. Vormauern den Ungläubigen. Häretil<crn oder Schismatikern in die Hände, so fielen mit ihnen auch die dahinter liegenden Länder und der Untergang der ganzen christlich-abendlän-dischen Kulturgemeinschaft sei so gut rvie besiegelt. I Die Exklusion der christlich-orthodoxen Welt von der als ,,wahre" Christenheit verstan-denen latinitus konnte aber je nach politischer Wetterlage '-auch aufgehoben und ins ge-naue Gegenteil urngekehrt werden. So u,'urde etwa mit dem militärischen Vordringen der Osmanen auch den orthodoxen Balkanbevölkelungen eine Vorpostenrolle zugesclrrieben. Grenzgesellschaften, wie etwa die Bulgaren oder die Serben, wurden ab dem 14. Jahrhundert a1s wichtige Pul}'erzonerr der ungarischen Krone gegen die osmanische Expansion verstan-den. Es waren aber vor allem die Donaufürstenttjrlrrer Walacliei und Moldau, die im 15. und tiühen 16. Jahrhundert für sich das Bild einer die (westliche) Christenheit schützenden Mauer beanspn-rchten und als solche auch weitgehend betrachtet wurden.r Wird in belletristischen, populärwissenschaftlichen aber auch wissenschafilichen Werken von den Donaufürstcntümern als den glaubensver-teidigenden Vorposten des Christentums geschrieben, so geschieht dies zurneist im Zusammenhang rnit Vlad III. dem P1ähler (ca.

The Republic of Moldova is an exceptional state. It was the only Soviet republic to proclaim independence, on 27 August 1991, in order to become part of another state, i.e. Romania, rather than building its own independent political future. After the civil war, the break-up of the common state and the de facto collapse of the unification project, the newly established Moldova found itself in an ideological vacuum. With no experience of statehood, no coherent historical narrative or responsible political elites, and with a nation that was unsure of its identity, it set off on a long march in search of an idea that could define the shape of its statehood and the direction of its future development.

Twenty-five years on, the social and political project called the Republic of Moldova is experiencing a grave crisis. The Moldovan statehood remains fragile and seemingly impermanent. The country’s successive governments have not been able to build effective state institutions or create adequate conditions for economic development. After years of structural and economic weakness, today’s Moldova as led by Vlad Plahotniuc, the country’s most powerful politician and businessman, is a typical post-Soviet oligarchy ruled by a narrow clique interested mainly in protecting its own political and business interests.

This is the first article dealing specifically with Brezhnev in Soviet Moldavia. The article draws mainly on recently disclosed files from the Archive of the Social-Political Organizations of the Republic of Moldova, the former archive of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Moldavia. The authors are trying to understand the importance of the period when Brezhnev served as First Secretary of Central Committee of Moldavia from 1950 to 1952 for his subsequent career. In order to understand better the results of Brezhnev’s rule in Moldavian SSR and the impact on his leadership style, the authors discuss the previous career of Brezhnev as well as the activity of the previous First
Secretaries in Soviet Moldavia. One of the main results of Brezhnev period in Moldavia was the consolidation of kolkhozes. In a broader sense, since this period at least, Brezhnev favoured quantity over quality.

The Soviet Union as Empire: Theoretical considerations; Moldova under the Soviet Regime: What was Specific? The Rehabilitation of the Victoms of Communist Terror; Politics of Memory and the Victims after 1989; The Creation of the Commission for the Study and Evaluation of Totalitarian Regime in the Republic of Moldova; Conclusions.

The end of political year of 2015 has proven to be a play with sad ending for the Republic of Moldova. Valeriu Strelet’s government fell after less than 100 days in office. The motion was backed by 65 deputies (out of 101) from the Socialist Party (PSRM) led by Igor Dodon, the Communist Party (PCRM), and the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM), which until recently had been a member of the government coalition.

Liderii politici au demonstrat nu o dată că, în loc să se preocupe de problemele cu adevărat stringente din societate, preferă să distragă atenția opiniei publice prin dezbaterea unor controverse false care circulă în societate. Igor Dodon nu este o excepție, iar odată cu învestirea sa în funcția de șef al statului el a readus și mai mult în actualitate problema identitară, în special, cea despre denumirea limbii pe care o vorbim.