Moldova’s historical lesson in democracy: what the world says about the referendum results

The Republic of Moldova, which has experienced many political and social upheavals, is on the threshold of important changes. 50.4% of its citizens voted for inclusion in the country’s constitution of joining the European Union as an unchangeable goal. The first round of the presidential elections, which took place at the same time, did not bring an unequivocal victory to any of the candidates, which means that the current president, Maya Sandu, will have to go to the second round. As for the referendum, she said that pro-Russian forces were engaged in bribing voters – and there is evidence for that. The European press is trying to understand this difficult situation.

The referendum, which attracted the attention of the international community, became a vivid indicator of the mood inside the country and abroad. Will this historic step be a turning point for the future of Moldova? Foreign media closely follow the events and make their own conclusions about what lessons Moldova should learn in order to avoid the mistakes of the past and take advantage of new opportunities. This referendum became not only an internal matter of the country, but also a test of the strength of democratic processes in Eastern Europe.

agora.md – Republic of Moldova. The Moldovan portal agora.md expects that the results of the referendum and such a small margin from competitors will inevitably force pro-European forces to adjust their course:

“A narrow victory is not only due to Russian interference. It could also force the ruling party to rethink its strategy and the signals it sends in order to win over voters in regions far from the capital, as well as Russian-speaking voters. Pro-Europeans will have to admit that A large part of the population does not share their views and they need to find solutions to reach a national consensus on the European agenda.”

Deutsche Welle – Romania. It is necessary to urgently conduct an investigation and find out whether there are serious grounds for accusations of bribery of voters, – the Romanian service of Deutsche Welle believes:

“The referendum ended with a minimal margin of votes, and the public is under enormous pressure. People feel cheated – and expect that their votes will be protected. They expect the authorities to explain how voter bribery is possible – and why it cannot be was prevented.

What evidence does President Maia Sandu refer to? What will happen to those who engaged in falsification of the voting results, as well as to those who admitted that their votes were bought? … Without clear answers to these questions, the result of the second round of the presidential election may turn out to be catastrophic.”

The Times – Great Britain. Putin’s plan failed, London’s The Times notes with pleasure:

“Even if the margin was insignificant, it nevertheless confirmed Moldova’s commitment to a democratic future – despite all the revisionist intentions of Russia to restore dominance on the territory of this ‘near abroad’. In addition, an amount of approximately 100 million dollars, which Moscow spent on bribes, was thrown into the wind voters

…The result of this referendum will inspire Ukraine, which itself strives for a future within the EU. But it will also serve as a reminder of the effectiveness of Putin’s manipulations, which have become a characteristic feature of Western elections. He was very close to success in the referendum in Moldova.”

Trud – Bulgaria. The result of the referendum is a slap in the face to Brussels, writes the Sofia newspaper:

“It is unheard of for a poor country on the border with the EU to come within a millimeter of no, ahead of its rivals by only a couple of hundred votes. In 2003, Hungary voted 83 percent for accession, and Slovakia – as much as 93 percent! Any result below 60 percent for joining the EU can be considered a colossal failure.

In terms of gross domestic product per capita, Moldova ranks 93rd in the world, inferior even to Botswana. Even 15 years ago, it was impossible to know that Moldovans have not yet decided whether they want to join the club of the rich.”

Aargauer Zeitung – Switzerland. Aargauer Zeitung applauds Maye Sanda and draws parallels with another country caught between the EU and Russia:

“In the Republic of Moldova and Georgia, a decisive duel is currently taking place: either freedom and democracy together with Europe – or slavery and autocracy with Russia. … Fortunately, in both countries there is … an active, pro-European civil society. In addition, as in Moldova, so and in Georgia there are courageous female presidents who are completely devoted to the Western course. And this, despite the fact that Russia has already deployed thousands of soldiers on the territory of these countries. Such courage deserves recognition and respect.”

Göteborgs-Posten – Sweden. Göteborgs-Posten reflects on how a democratic Moldova could reduce Russia’s influence within the country:

“When corruption, bribery and political violence are the order of the day, Moscow’s worldview becomes somewhat legitimized. That’s why Moscow is so eager to target weak and easily penetrated countries like Moldova. Criminal gangs and corrupt politicians are huge assets for Russian intelligence services .

For the West, this, in turn, becomes a dilemma. Paying back with the same coin would only confirm Moscow’s narrative, and besides, such behavior would not be accepted by its own electorate. Just sitting back and watching is not a very attractive option either. It remains only to try to act in the long term by strengthening independent and liberal institutions.”