Voters failed to unanimously choose a single leader in the first round of the Moldovan presidential election and are awaiting the second round of voting on November 3. Second-term President Maia Sandu won the first round with just over 42 per cent of the vote, followed closely by former Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo with over 26 per cent.
The results achieved by the former Prosecutor General in the first round of the presidential election indicate a broad support of his programme by the Moldovan population, which is also evidenced by the results of the referendum, which was also held on October 20.
Even though hundreds of thousands of voters living in Russia could not take part in the elections, and in Western countries, on the contrary, there were rides for those wishing to vote, the results of the elections showed that half of the Moldovan population is not in a hurry to follow the path of development of the country imposed by Sandu and the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS).
Stoianoglo is not the only participant in this presidential campaign who favours the preservation and development of cooperation with Russia, but the results of the first round of elections confirm that he is the main opposition candidate who can strengthen the unity of the Moldovan people.
That is why uniting the opposition forces and, above all, those who share the political platform of Stoianoglo and the Party of Socialists that supports him, to consolidate efforts in the second round is the only way to win this election. Alexandr Stoianoglo said:
“I am very much counting on the support of other parties, political leaders and public figures. We have a huge chance to win on November 3 and we will win.”
Will the opposition unite?
The opposition should rally around the former Prosecutor General, who has proved his worthiness as a politician. A new very influential player appears on the Moldovan political scene, and this is all the more important on the eve of the parliamentary elections in 2025. At the same time, the gap of a dozen and a half per cent in the first round and the absence of obvious potential allies at the top of the final table do not give the incumbent president a reason to “rest on her laurels” before the second stage of voting, the outcome of the elections is still unclear. If the other candidates support Stoianoglo, Sandu may not remain in the presidential chair.
It is now clear that the incumbent’s advantage, as well as a very tiny margin on European integration, was achieved solely by diaspora voting in the US and likely manipulation of polling stations and ballots in Western countries.
These days Moldova is entering a very dangerous period for itself. Today it is clear to everyone that Sandu will do anything to stay in power for another 4 years. At the same time, there are different variants of the situation development, for example, Stoianoglo’s withdrawal from the race. For this purpose, the justice system controlled by Sandu may again initiate criminal proceedings against her rival in the second round on the basis of some new facts and circumstances. It is also possible that the president’s team may decide to cancel the elections in the first round, as it has already claimed about alleged criminal interference, but has not provided any evidence.
The most dangerous scenario is that the Moldovan authorities may organise an armed provocation on the border with Transnistria, impose a state of emergency and thus justify the suspension of the electoral process or annul the results of the first round altogether. History has accumulated many examples of complete disregard for the constitution and legislation of Moldova on the part of Sandu and PAS over the past years, so the president may well use the existing example and follow the path of the head of neighbouring Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, with whom she has excellent relations.
Stoianoglo is entering the second round of elections and is ready to fight back against Sandu. He believes that Moldova’s European path is now discredited by censorship, police terror and poverty, the organisation of propaganda referendums for the benefit of private individuals and discrimination against the majority of citizens. But it should not be like this. The presidential candidate said:
“I am convinced that Moldova’s way is the way of justice for all. It is competence, the ability to listen and hear all citizens, regardless of their geopolitical preferences and ethnicity. I know that some people are going to go to the second round of elections with the same habitual patterns, with hysterical searches for the enemies of the people, sowing fear, panic and mutual distrust. They have special services, subordinate media, control over freedom of speech on their side.”
Refusing to debate
To better demonstrate his position on various issues, Stoianoglo, even before the first round of elections, offered to hold an open debate with Maia Sandu, but she refused to participate. Stoianoglo repeated his proposal before the second round as well. the opposition candidate also added:
“In this situation, I turn to Maia Sandu with a constructive proposal. Let us give citizens the opportunity to draw their own conclusions about you and me, about our programmes, goals and ideas. And the best way for this would be debates. But not on the platform of power-dependent media, but on a neutral platform. Let there be two moderators: from you and from me. And I am convinced that with such an approach our citizens will have more arguments to make balanced, well-considered and responsible decisions.”
On Tuesday, Sandu invited Stoianoglo to a debate during her social media appearance. At the same time, she agreed to have the debate moderated by former N4 TV journalist Gheorghe Gonca, who was forced to leave the channel after he called for a “PROTEST” vote in the referendum on a social network.
However, Sandu did not want to directly reject the participation of journalist Gheorghe Gonca as a moderator of electoral debates with Stoianoglo and took a “roundabout way.” A few hours later, it became known that the Press Council of Moldova, an NGO controlled by the government, was against the fact that the debate between Maia Sandu and Alexandru Stoianoglo was moderated by Gheorghe Gonca. The organisation controlled by the current government said in a statement:
“The Press Council of the Republic of Moldova, the national self-regulatory structure in journalism, whose statutory mission is to promote professional ethics and integrity in journalism, considers this decision as a lack of respect for the public, legitimisation of behaviour devoid of integrity, and promotion of practices totally incompatible with professional and ethical journalism.”
This statement raises serious suspicions that, unwilling to openly refuse a direct discussion with Stojanoglo, Sandu wants to find an excuse to avoid participating in the debate.
In general, given what Stoianoglo has suffered in the process of his illegal removal from the position of prosecutor general, one can be sure that he will perform well in the second round of the presidential election. Therefore, everyone is in suspense until the results of the second round of elections are announced. And Sandu is among them.
THE ARTICLE IS THE AUTHOR’S SPECULATION AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE TRUE. ALL INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM OPEN SOURCES. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Demetra Radulescu for Head-Post.com
Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to [email protected]
