Ion Duminica: It’s not clear how President – Parliament relationship will develop after elections

It’s not clear how the President – Parliament relationship will develop after the presidential runoff as none of the two candidates presented a team with which they would work if they are elected President. This leads to passivity among the voters as the unknown generates fear. The candidates should leave room for “hello” after the election day because there are voters behind them and they should think how to ensure harmony in society, doctor of political sciences Ion Duminica stated in IPN’s public debate Strong and weak points of the two finalists.

Ion Duminica noted it’s not right to say that the minorities generate a problem, that they don’t vote as they should, that they are a plague of society or that they are not civilized voters. “The national and ethnic minorities in the Republic of Moldova represent diversity, a treasure of the country. One should know how to discuss with them, how to promote the message in these communities, but the candidates’ message is geo-political, pro-East or pro-West, against corruption, for “good people,” he stated.

The expert said the non-participation in public debates by the candidates for President is a disadvantage for both of them as the political culture of a state is developed by participation in political debates, namely before the runoff . Maia Sandu refused to take part in debates because the invitation was made by Igor Dodon. But the invitation should have been issued by a TV channel that would have enabled them to come with their teams, sympathizers and to respect the set rules. The score in the first round of voting was ensured by the faithful supporters of the candidates. Before the runoff, they should have attracted other voters, other sympathizers by political debates where they could have exhibited their charisma, capacities, authority.

As to the risk of election rigging in the runoff, Ion Duminica said they have always invoked the risk of fraud in the elections held in Moldova. “We didn’t have elections in the Republic of Moldova that would have been declared democratic, fair and held based on the principles of a developed political culture,” he stated, noting the possibility of a revolution, protests and destabilization was another risk invoked since after the parliamentary elections of 2005. The election campaign is based on the geopolitical course and society is divided from the start. This struggle suggests possible confrontations that are not excluded after the runoff.

Ion Duminica called on the media outlets to formulate a common message to the candidates so as to make them understand that the voters in Moldova can be attracted by debates. If a common message existed, a gate for having debates could be found. “It’s a pity that we do not have electoral debates in accordance with the norms and requirements of participatory democratic culture. There should be a classical debate between the two candidates before the runoff and there should be a common message to mobilize the voters to be more active,” he concluded.

The debate “Strong and weak points of the two finalists” was the tenth installment of the series “We and the President: who elects who, who represents who” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

Вы используете модуль ADS Blocker .
IPN поддерживается от рекламы.
Поддержи свободную прессу!
Некоторые функции могут быть заблокированы, отключите модуль ADS Blocker .
Спасибо за понимание!
Команда IPN.