On October 20th, Moldovans voted in presidential elections and a constitutional referendum on EU integration, which were initiated by the pro-EU president Maia Sandu. People went to sleep with more than two-thirds of ballots counted and with the “Yes” option being below half of the votes. However, they woke up the next day with the referendum narrowly passing with 50.38 per cent. The conflict ebbed and flowed overall. The pro-EU votes from the diaspora, which came late into the count, helped to safe the EU strategical way of Moldova. The diaspora besides massively contributed to the win, with 56 per cent voting for Sandu in the following second circular of elections from November 3rd. During this circular she faced Aleksandr Stoianoglo, a average candidate backed by the pro-Russian Socialists party.
However, the results showed deep polarization and a low level of cohesion within the society regarding abroad policy choices. The people in the diaspora voted massively for EU integration, while Sandu lost within the country. The elections were besides affected by external Russian interference, which utilized a well-tested playbook with disinformation; illicit flows of money followed by intense voter corruption; and hybrid warfare all causing tensions in society. The results set the scene for the upcoming and more crucial parliamentary elections in 2025. They have left more uncertainties and questions about the political future of Moldova.
EU referendum results: a win is simply a win
Over the last decade, pro-European figures in the national and global arenas promoted the choice of the Moldovan people to join the EU, while pro-Russian politicians usually challenged these ideas. Each side has its own instruments. The political uncertainty sets the country at the crossroads between East and West. To show that there is simply a strong consensus on the EU way and abroad policy choices within the society, the current president Maia Sandu, backed by the parliament, initiated a constitutional referendum, raising the stakes of the game. People were asked on October 20th if they wanted to enshrine EU integration as a goal in the constitution. This was done to guarantee that EU reforms and investments have continuity, regardless of the future political trajectory after the upcoming parliament elections in 2025. The referendum was held on the same day as the first circular of the presidential elections, where Sandu was besides the main pro-EU candidate. This was done to bring more people to the polling stations. As aforementioned, the referendum narrowly passed with 50.38 per cent of voters choosing the EU. This showed a advanced level of polarization and a deficiency of cohesion within the society on matters of strategical direction regarding abroad policy and the objectives of Moldova. EU integration was supported more in the European and North American diaspora, as well as in Chisinau and another central regions of the country. On the another side, anti-EU forces won in all another municipalities in the north and south in the Transnistrian region, and mostly within the country as well. In Gagauzia, home to the Gagauz Turkic number and where Russian influence is strong and government engagement is low, EU integration support reached only 5 per cent.
The results are far little affirmative than the pro-EU political forces expected and leave questions about whether the country was ready now for this democratic exercise. However, the results besides show that building a consensus in society means the request to advance EU values and benefits and engage the authorities, civilian society and citizens in a continuous dialog and public participation process. There are no shortcuts for EU integration, and if it is done in a rushed way, the thought and chosen way might backfire. Taking into account the level of disinformation and abroad interference, the results of the referendum can be considered as a affirmative sign. The difference of only 0.8 per cent is not a reason to question the legitimacy of a future within the EU family. We have seen it in another current EU associate states too. For example, Sweden held a referendum on EU integration in 1994, with 52.3 per cent voting “Yes”. Now, it is 1 of the most active members.
Sandu is the first president of Moldova who was re-elected
The second circular of the elections had the same level of tensions and Maia Sandu won this time decisively against Stoianoglo, with 55.35 per cent of the vote. The diaspora, again, showed crucial support for a pro-EU president and changed the situation. However, Sandu lost the elections within the country, unlike 4 years ago, erstwhile she won against the pro-Russian candidate and erstwhile president Igor Dodon. This communicative is promoted now by her opponents from the Socialists party, who do not admit her win and are challenging her power.
The first and second rounds were different. Within the first round, Sandu utilized the same tactics that ensured her win 4 years ago. She did not participate in electoral debates, although civilian society and the population demanded it, and talked straight with citizens through her communications channels and meetings. However, the first round, erstwhile she got 42.49 per cent, served as a cold shower for her and her squad due to the fact that her upcoming win was not that obvious. Sandu wanted to challenge Stoianoglo through debates but it seemed that he wanted them less. The only debate that happened was without a moderator and showed a clear win for Sandu. She knew better the numbers, the policies and how to make the lives of citizens better. Stoianoglo talked more about laws, regulations and procedures, coming across alternatively as a lawyer and prosecutor than a future president. He was a average candidate and supporting Ukraine in the war. He besides declared himself pro-European while boycotting the referendum, saying that it was alternatively a decision by Sandu and the ruling organization to capitalize on the issue of EU integration. The pro-EU squad feared that he would be able to attract voters from the another candidates from the centre specified as Ustatii, who gained 13.79 per cent, and another smaller pro-Russian candidates who gained together 13.63 per cent. These groups declared their support for Stoianoglo, while attracting as well those people who did not want to vote for the Socialists organization and Dodon himself. Sandu understood the issue and during the second circular prepared targeted messages for the Ustatii pool of voters and the supporters of Sor, a pro-Russian public figure who has been accused of corruption in Moldova. The strategy worked and Sandu secured the win, even in the Orhei district, where most of Sor’s supporters are based and where his parties win local elections. Sandu besides met with Ion Ceban, the mayor of Chisinau, who was formerly 1 of the leaders of the pro-Russian Socialists organization and now leader of the MAN (Alternative National Movement) party, which has declared itself to be pro-EU. The president managed to safe wins in 4 out of 5 districts in Chisinau, as well as in the suburbs.
Although pro-EU forces secured a win in the referendum and presidential elections, the disappointment level in Sandu’s organization is rising. Overall, it is little likely to win a majority in the next parliamentary elections and will request to form coalitions. Sandu already announced that any changes in the government would happen. This was followed by the departure of Andrei Spinu, the minister for infrastructure on November 11th. Further changes announced by Prime Minister Dorin Recean afraid the minister of interior and the minister of agriculture. The reshuffle in the government is seen by the society as any cosmetic measure, as more serious changes had been expected.
Foreign interference and voter corruption
Both the referendum and presidential elections were a playground for abroad interference. However, issues concerning EU integration scrutiny saw more attention. This all showed deep long-lasting divisions within the society as different groups tried to antagonize parts of society against others in an effort to accomplish fragmentation within the nation.
There was an intense flow of illegal funds coming from sources from Russia, followed by an unprecedented vote-buying process. The Moldovan authorities have already found 35 million US dollars smuggled into the country by cash and through the MIR payment system, the Russian alternate to SWIFT. This was done through a Russian bank under global sanctions. The full network of people who received the payments is estimated to be 138,000 in number. Law enforcement agencies already applied more than 250 000 euros in fines for voting corruption for more than 500 people, a number that is rising all day. They besides took into custody respective people, while national tv and another free media are promoting investigation materials about voter corruption. Taken together, the consequences of the Russian interference are inactive yet to be investigated by the authorities and full understood.
The questions that arise are simple – why do people sale their votes and what do authorities request to do about it? If we put the issue of disinformation aside, the answers lie somewhere between a low level of civic education and low participation due to the fact that wages and funds in agrarian areas are low. While the authorities are investigating the issue to bring to justice those who sold their votes, the politicians who are buying them be off the radar. The “stick” method is not working as planned, and the solution requires better policies and actions. The government needs to think about how to rise the level of prosperity within the society. Authorities will manage to eradicate voter corruption not only through the fear caused by fines but besides through providing a good level of life, decent wages and good pensions, the usual promises during campaigns.
The issue of raising inequalities within Moldovan society is an crucial substance and it is not only about being for or against EU integration. The country is divided into groups with many layers that have little contact with each other, but during election times. On the 1 hand, there are people in the agrarian areas who conflict financially and face the full spectrum of consequences from the inequalities. The data is not encouraging, showing that 15 per cent of Moldovans live below the poorness line, while half of the country is at hazard of poverty. On the another hand, those from urban areas and the diaspora support the EU due to the fact that they see its benefits daily. However, they find it challenging to explain these benefits to little privileged segments of the population. The focus of the authorities should be to rise the quality of life and prosperity among those who face poverty. The authorities are ensuring growth by deepening relations with the EU, which is the biggest trade partner and investor of Moldova.
The country is rebounding from the post-war energy and economical crisis, which raised inflation to 30 per cent with only 0.7 per cent economical growth in 2023. Now, the inflation level has gone back to average and economic growth is set to be 2.4 per cent in 2024. The authorities are conducting reforms and policies aimed at investing in agrarian areas, strengthening social welfare, and beginning fresh jobs all while adjusting Moldova to EU standards. However, we have yet to see the results of these reforms. The authorities request to engage immediately in a continuous dialog with all levels of society and invest in education and human capital development, especially with those who do not necessarily see the benefits of the EU within their backyard.
Foreign interference: disinformation
During the campaign, there was an intense disinformation run targeting the EU and Maia Sandu. Although the polls portrayed a higher triumph for the pro-EU choice at more than 53 per cent, the unprecedented level of disinformation left its marks. The run was focused on encouraging fear within the society, encompassing the same old tactics and showing incorrect and irrelevant facts in public debates. This run overall supported the political choice of moving towards Russia and the Customs Union of the Eurasian economical Union, a Moscow-backed global union which is seen as an unsuccessful attempt to respond to the EU and aims only to feed the regional ambitions of the country. Opting for less ties with the EU, the campaigns presented Brussels as the incorrect choice for Moldovan people and businesses.
For the Moldovan citizens, the main narratives were focused on human rights issues, specified as the fact that migrants will “flood the country” and the EU will advance same-sex marriages. The narratives besides focused on the incorrect thought that religion will be under threat. The question of war and peace suggested that deeper integration with the EU will bring war, presenting the Russian war in Ukraine as an example. They besides argued that peace brought by forces friendly to Russia is more crucial than uncertainty with the EU.
There were besides arguments related to the economy, exploiting the Russian gas dependence of Moldova, as well as inflating the importance of economical relations and trade with Russia, which is in reality only 3.7 per cent.
For business, there are messages targeting farmers, a large group of the Moldovan labour force. The disinformation is linked with the economical arguments that farmers “will perish” erstwhile Moldova joins the EU, and that land will be sold to “foreigners”. However, these arguments do not match the real situation.
EU integration campaign
On the another side, the main promoters of the pro-EU option for the referendum were those who paved the country’s way towards beginning the negotiations, namely Maia Sandu and her ruling Action and Solidarity party, together with NGOs and extra-parliamentary parties. The focus was on promoting the benefits of a deeper integration with the EU Single marketplace and economical opportunities, specified as exports with no tariffs, capital, people’s mobility and investments. However, on the human rights and EU values side, the run was done in a hectic way and was more focused on combating disinformation about religion, migration and LGBTQ issues, alternatively than promoting EU diversity and inclusivity principles. The run focused on the fact that the EU cannot impose more LGTBQ rights or push issues concerning migration or religion. The run focused more on what the EU cannot do and preserving national sovereignty, alternatively than portraying the Union as a place where no 1 is left behind.
Law enforcement and safety agencies have banned and blocked respective pro-Russian websites and Telegram channels that promoted disinformation, but without presenting facts and analysis. This brings the dilemma of the legal and ethical procedures of restricting information and media, while authorities effort to balance between securing the informational space and people from disinformation while preserving advanced standards of freedom of speech. To support this, another Russian-speaking media groups or even pro-Russian websites that are not breaking the rules are inactive available. The referendum run was besides done in both languages.
Polarization a challenge for the future
The referendum on EU integration, passing with 50.38 per cent, and the presidential elections won by the pro-EU president Maia Sandu has secured the strategical EU way of Moldova. However, this might change in the long term. The existing societal divides within the population request to be addressed and considered by the authorities. There is simply a request to build trust and broader consensus in society and to advance EU values and benefits daily, not only during elections. The EU integration choice is clear but Moldova is inactive at the crossroads between Russia and the West. The upcoming parliamentary elections next year, erstwhile Sandu’s Action and Solidarity organization will face pro-Russian forces, will specify the road that Moldova will take for the next fewer years, as well as the pace of the current EU reforms. The Russian interference in the last elections was a test for the authorities. To tackle the consequences of this hybrid warfare, the authorities have little than 1 year to come up with efficient solutions against disinformation and voter corruption. president Sandu and the ruling organization should engage in public debates and a broader dialog with civilian society and citizens, and not only bring the usual suspects to the table.
Dan Nicorici is simply a programme analyst at the Center for Policies and Reforms from Moldova and he holds a Master’s degree in European Public Affairs and Policies from the College of Europe.
Please support New east Europe's crowdfunding campaign. Donate by clicking on the button below.
![Kiedy słońce życia zachodzi, gwiazdy pamięci świecą. Żegnamy zmarłego Kazimierza Kozioła [ZDJĘCIE]](https://storage.googleapis.com/bieszczady/korso/articles/image/5eb9aecc-bef5-47e4-8127-730634e35499)
