Last week, democracy was put to a test in Moldova. The country's citizens went to the polls on September 5 to vote on a referendum to amend Article 78 of the Constitution so that the president could be elected directly by the people. The referendum had been triggered by the failure-twice-of the Parliament to elect the president, mainly because the Communist Party refused to vote (61 votes are needed for the election of the President, and the Communists are the largest grouping with 48 of 101 seats). In order to put an end to the year-long political crisis, the ruling Alliance for European Integration, comprising four liberal and democratic parties, decided to change the constitution so that the president could be elected by a popular vote.
Yet the referendum failed, because Moldovan law mandates a turnout of at l east one-third of the electorate, and only 30.29 % of the voters went to the polls. The failure was a very unpleasant surprise-not least to the organizer of a recent survey, published on the eve of the referendum, which predicted that as many as 73% of voters might go to the polls. The pollster had argued that due to the "peculiarity" of the Moldovan electorate, which-he said-often says one thing but does the opposite, probably around 50% of voters would go to the polls. Well, it didn't happen.
The ruling alliance, which includes Prime Minister Vlad Filat's Liberal Democratic Party and Acting President Mihai Ghimpu's Liberal Party, were sure that the referendum would pass. Taken aback by its failure, the alliance has admitted that it was mainly due to the four parties' inability to put forward a coordinated message. Prime Minister Filat also acknowledged that the opposition Communist Party had been very efficient in convincing voters to boycott the referendum and not go to the polls. The Communists, led by Vladimir Voronin, claimed that the low turnout had in reality been a vote of no confidence for the government.
All the same, the referendum was a successful democratic exercise for Moldova, with no influence from abroad. International observers said the referendum had been well organized, noting that what small violations there had been could not have influenced the results.
According to Moldovan law, the failure of the referendum means the parliament must be dissolved and early parliamentary elections held. Members of the ruling alliance agree, and have floated November 21 as a tentative date. President Ghimpu has confirmed that he plans to set the electoral process in motion, but he appears to be in no rush.
So why did the referendum fail? The Communist Party, faithful to tradition, was able to rely on the discipline of its supporters (about 35% of the electorate), who did as they were instructed and stayed at home. On the other hand, and as the ruling alliance itself admitted, the four parties' uncoordinated campaign before the referendum confused the electorate. Moreover, in their confidence that the referendum would pass, some members of the alliance practically were already campaigning for the presidency, pushing the referendum issue to the sidelines. This mistaken confidence led voters to think that the referendum would pass the low threshold of 33%; as a result, many did not bother to vote. Moldovans living abroad, on whose support the ruling alliance relied the most, also disappointed expectations. Only 3.8% of the Moldovan diaspora actually cast their vote.
This sobering experience should serve as a wake up call for the ruling alliance. If its four leaders want to have a bargaining weight in the next legislature, personal ambitions should be set aside. Moldovan voters need to see that their democratic representatives can speak with the same voice. One thing is certain: the communist support base remains strong. With elections only a couple of months away, it is obvious that they will remain the biggest faction in the parliament. Yet Moldova cannot afford perpetual political uncertainty. The only way to overcome this political crisis is for the members of the future parliament to reach a consensus, elect a president, and bring stability to Moldova for the next four years. The alternative would be a cycle of never-ending parliamentary elections, which might make democracy less appealing to Moldovans.
