“They don’t talk about problems in the Republic of Moldova. The lawyers, the judges or the prosecutors do not talk about them. The ordinary people are afraid of these institutions and will also not speak. They all want someone else to speak instead of them. But the higher is the number of people we speak, the faster we could bring about a change,” lawyer and human rights expert Violeta Gașițoi stated in an interview for IPN. She noted that society can obtain a better life by exerting pressure on the rulers.
“And I had a lot of cases when I was contacted and told about the violations, illegalities committed by institutions and asked to talk about them. But who am I and why should I speak? I’m not a witness to these violations. You are a witness and you should speak about them. This is what is necessary. The higher is the number of people we speak, the faster we could bring about a change,” stated the lawyer who settled in the U.S. four years ago.
According to her, such a situation derives from a particular education model. “We were educated that “we don’t need this and the Government, the state does things that should not concern us”. When we hear about a case of violation of the basic human rights, our society says “this does not refer to us; it is the neighbor’s problem, not mine; it is someone’s problem”. The people don’t think that today it is the neighbor’s problem, but tomorrow can become their problem and we all bear a particular blame for not talking about these problems, for not protesting en masse to show to the rulers that we see what they are doing and we do not work for them, but they work for us. We pay them and should thus demand that they account for what they do to us,” said Violeta Gașițoi.
She also said that in the states with democratic traditions, when the basic human rights of an ordinary citizen are violated, this case is made public and the whole society protests. By protests, by showing the society’s disagreement with rulers’ acts, a lot of laws were modified in the U.S. The laws here are changed most of the times as a result of society’s pressure, not because the rulers want.
The lawyer noted that amendments to the legislation are primarily made when the government is replaced. “For example, if we analyze the law on the prosecution service, we will see that this law was amended every time the government was replaced. If we analyze things further to see who proposed those amendments, we will see that the changes were made to suit particular interests – so that someone could apply for the post of prosecutor general, for example someone close to the current or the previous government. So, the amendments were done by adjusting them to the interests of a candidate with interests, of a party or a government. It happens so everywhere.
“What reforms can we talk about if the law is not amended in the interests of society or to bring benefits to society, but is changed in the government’s interests for someone to remain in the post for as many years as possible or for a particular candidate to be promoted to a public or a key state post? This is not reform. This is an illegality hid behind the law. It was an illegality indeed. We all hoped that with the replacement of the government, with new elections we will have reforms. We believed and were very active in elections. We believed that by bringing a new force to the Government, by bringing a new force to Parliament, skillful persons will be brought. But they weren’t brought. We reached a moment when they acted as the previous governments acted. They adjusted the law to personal interests.”
The interview was conducted in the framework of IPN News Agency’s project “Injustice Revealed through Multimedia”. The video version can be seen here.