Politics

Transnistria: Use of Referendum as an instrument to manipulate the public opinion

Reading Time: 7 minutes The idea of a referendum and how it can be changed from a democratic into an anti-democratic instrument has recently become the subject of discussion for many people, including experts, sociologists,

Published

17 years ago

December 5, 2006

Autor invitat

Reading Time: 7 minutes

The Use of the Referendum as an instrument to manipulate the public opinion

*The idea of a referendum and how it can be changed from a democratic into an anti-democratic instrument has recently become the subject of discussion for many people, including experts, sociologists, journalists and politicians.

By Dr. Argentina GRIBINCEA

The fact that this problem is an important one today is shown even by the Recommendation 1704 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Referendums: towards good practices in Europe (2005)[1]. In the press and also in scholarly studies, there are references that some regimes are using plebiscites in order to “aneasthetize civic consciousness”. It is a device largely used in the totalitarian states, especially in the post-Soviet ones, as many authors emphasize: “In the former Soviet countries or in the African ones, the referenda conducted by the incumbent regime as a rule resulted in the validation of already taken decisions and in the further weakening of fragile democracies. The appeal to the divided and politically inert nation can result in the extension of number of mandates permited to the heads of states or in the changing of the fundamental law on the basis of suggestions made by the head of the state. The crisis of the rule of law can be made worse by this practice of unfree referenda”[2] or: “The most dangerous attack on democracy comes, strangelly enough, from one of the most democratic devices: the referendum”[3]. The examples can continue.

The Association for a Participative Democracy from the Republic of Moldova has been writing since 2003 about the undermining of the election process in the Republic of Moldova:”A tradition has already been established that the referenda can take place only if it is favourable to the governments”[4].

Two events from the recent history of the Republic of Moldova can confirm these opinions of various commentators. This article must be understood as an attempt to look beyond the official declarations, an attempt inspired by the curiosity to observe certain tendencies and by the supposition that we are attending to a confiscation of democracy. And this is done by misusing the most important values of democracy.

Undoubtedly, the referendum is an efficient practice for the voicing the public opinion, but only if it takes place in a democratic framework and ensures citizens’ rights to information and free expression. Another precondition, an elementary one, is the formulation of questions according to scientific rules, which first of all means clarity in drafting the text and avoiding the ambiguities. The analysis of the conditions in which the recent Transnistrian referendum took place, leads to the inevitable conclusion that its results can not be considered valid. Various observers and political analysts such as Oazu Nantoi, Igor Botan, Stefan Uratu etc stated their opinions in this respect. The OSCE, the United States, Ukraine, Romania, France, Turkey and the European Union refused to recognize the results of this referendum, mentioning deficiencies in the conduct of the referendum, including the “suggestive character of the proposed questions” (Karel de Gucht; Louis O’Neill) [5]. Only the representatives of the Kremlin had a favourable opinion about this event. According to the INFOTAG Agency, which quotes the Russian press, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Serghei Lavrov, considers that the referendum took place “respecting all proceedings, and in a democratic and open way”[6].

Political commentator Igor Botan makes a detailed analysis of the conditions in which the Transnistrian referendum was held and of the manipulative methods that were used. For example, referring to the way in which the questions were formulated, Igor Botan wrote: “the two questions which were proposed for the referendum are, in fact, four. Mentioning the first question, an elementary exercise emphasizes the fact that the way of formulating: "Do you support the course of independence of the Transistrian Moldovan Republic and the subsequent free joining of Transnistria to the Russian Federation?" – induces automatically and extra-answer: the consent for the subsequent free joining to the Russian Federation, which automatically becomes an imperative for the separatist authorities. Thus, the option for Transnistria’s independence without its subsequent joining to the Russian Federation is eliminated.

The alternative question "Do you consider rejecting the independence of the Transnistrian Moldovan Republic and subsequently becoming part of Moldova?" also denies the need of existence of Transnistria. An eventual positive answer to this question, like an eventual positive answer to the first question, annuls the need of existence of "independent Transnistria". The second part of the question on Transistria’s integration into Moldova is needless, but it was necessary from reasons of symmetry in order to justify the second part of the first question. Of course, Transnistria is part of Moldova, a fact admitted inclusively by "the only supporter of Transnistria" – the Russian Federation”.[7]

Those who remember the Public Opinion Poll “Council with the people” from March 6, 1994 would have noticed that the poll had the same imperfections, including an unrigorous style with an obvious intention “to bewilder” the respondent, it took place in thw same undemocratic conditions: the population’s fear of the presence and aggression of the Russian army illegally stationed on the left bank of the Nistru (Dniester), the Moldovenist ideology promoted by the officials from Chisinau, an ideology which is associated with the Stalinist period), the lack of an efficient institutional framework for exercising human liberties and rights, etc.

Here it is the text of the question proposed by the Moldovan government on 6 March 1994: “Are you for the Republic of Moldova to develop as an independent and integral undivided state within the borders recognized on the day when the sovereignity of Moldova was proclaimed (23.06, 1990), to promote a policy of neutrality, maintain mutually advantageous economic relations with all countries of the world and to guarantee all citizens equal rights, according to the norms of international law?” (see The Report No. 4/94 of the OSCE Mission in Moldova). As it can be seen, the sentence contains, in fact, six questions, to which only one answer is requested. The method that was used was the same as in the recent "referendum" in Transnistria.

It is interesting that on that occasion, the OSCE had nothing to object to the unprofessional formulation of the questions, as well as to the undemocratic atmosphere in which the poll took place. From the above-mentioned report of the OSCE Mission, we can also find out that the turnout for "the presidential public opinion poll on 6 March 1994 regarding the integrity and independence of Moldova was slightly over 75 per cent". Moreover, the OSCE report says that this percentage is high "when bearing in mind that the opposition boycotted the poll and participation from Transnistria was negligible. The yes-vote was 95.4 percent. The poll confirmed the political trend against union with Romania as already revealed by the results of the parliamentary election”. I do not know who could have read between the lines of that fuzzy question that it was referring to the unification with Romania. On the contrary, the text seemed to refer to the recently “frozen” Transnistrian conflict at the time and also to the separatist tendencies of the region from the left bank of the River. The questions of the Public Opinion Poll “Council with people” could not have any relation with the problem of unification with Romania. And this was not only because there was not any official unification proposal of the Republic of Moldova (or of the part between the Prut and the Dniester) with Romania and no public discussion at the level of entire society on that topic, but also because the survey was organized in a period in which the term of “Romanian language” was forbidden on the state television, the Romanian press in Moldova was not independent (it was confronted with significant financial, bureaucratic and political problems), and Moldovenist ideology had become the “state ideology” of the Republic of Moldova. In order to understand how dangerous this ideology is, it is enough to mention that this has brought about a real witch hunt in the Chisinau press, in which the Bassarabian writers who used to publish books in Romania were punished for their “unpatriotic” gesture and considered a kind of “enemies” of the Moldovan people.[8] This was followed by an anti-Romanian campaign the climax of which can be considered Ion Morei’s speech delivered at ECHR, on 2 October, 2001, or Viktor Stephaniuk’s famous statements about Romanians.[9]

In conclusion, there are more similarities between these two so-called referenda, the most obvious of which is the ambiguity of the socio-political context in which the two simulations of public surveys took place and the added confusion of the population upon which the organizers have relied, ignoring the necessity of an institutional framework for pre-referendum debates. It is certain that a referendum that does not clarify anything may be very helpful for some politicians who are unable to govern through democratic means. For example, the results of the 1994 Public Opinion Poll were used by some politicians as a pretext to promote an anti-Romanian policy, a declarative-chauvinistic one, as a substitute for a genuine reforms (e.g., the kind of reforms which helped the former Baltic republics to join NATO and the EU). Nevertheless, the Transnistrian referendum will provide the leadership from Tiraspol a pretext to continue its secessionist, anti-Moldovan policy (and, implicitly anti-Romanian) up to the present, and for Russia to follow its imperialistic policy. It will be done by sacrifying the interests of the population fed up with slogans. If we also take into account the fact that these “referenda” (here I can also mention the proposed referendum in the South Ossetia) are used by Russia to manipulate world public opinion, asking that these regions with conflicts that it has provoked be treated in the same way as Montenegro and Kosovo, then the picture appears in collossal dimensions due to the Russian apetite. The issue is whether in the end the effort of giving up the methods from the Soviet era and learning democracy would not be less expencive. And here we can invoke again the example of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

[1] Recommendation 1704 (2005)^.Referendums: towards good practices in Europe, Assembly debate on 29 April 2005 (16th Sitting) (see Doc. 10498, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr Elo).
Text adopted by the Assembly on 29 April 2005 (16th Sitting).

[2] Ioan Stanomir, Referendum and Democracy, in 22 Magazine, 4 August-10 August 2006.

[3] Pavel Ionescu, To Speak Well about Democracy, see http://www.lumeam.ro/119921.html. [accessed in September 2006]

[4] See Subminarea integrităţii procesului electoral, 17 January 2003,

http://www.e-democracy.md/comments/political/20030117/ [accessed in November 2006]

[5] OSCE does not recognize Transdniestrian independence referendum. See http://www.osce.org/item/20620.html and: http://azi.md/news?ID=41053 [accessed in October 2006]

[6] Reactii la referendumul Transnistrean, 18 September, 2006. See http://azi.md/news?ID=41011 [accessed in October 2006]

[7] Referendum on background of explosions, Igor Botan, August 31, 2006. See http://www.e-democracy.md/en/comments/political/200608311/ [accessed in October 2006]

[8] Ion Santu, Visions and Political Interests, Sovereign Moldova, 23 January, 1996.

[9] V.Stepaniuk: “ Incetisor, am scos-o si am facut dintr-intrinsa lege..” See Timpul, No. 107, 19 December, 2003. See http://www.timpul.mdl.net/Article.asp?idIssue=12&idRubric=192&idArticle=384 [accessed in November 2006]

Featured

FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?

Published

3 years ago

September 29, 2021

Maria Dulgher

Reading Time: 4 minutes

A new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred in the headlines of worldwide football news yesterday. The Football Club Sheriff Tiraspol claimed a win with the score 2-1 against Real Madrid on the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid. That made Sheriff Tiraspol the leader in Group D of the Champions League, including the football club in the groups of the most important European interclub competition for the first time ever.

International media outlets called it a miracle, a shock and a historic event, while strongly emphasizing the origin of the team and the existing political conflict between the two banks of the Dniester. “Football club from a pro-Russian separatist enclave in Moldova pulls off one of the greatest upsets in Champions League history,” claimed the news portals. “Sheriff crushed Real!” they said.

Moldovans made a big fuss out of it on social media, splitting into two groups: those who praised the team and the Republic of Moldova for making history and those who declared that the football club and their merits belong to Transnistria – a problematic breakaway region that claims to be a separate country.

Both groups are right and not right at the same time, as there is a bunch of ethical, political, social and practical matters that need to be considered.

Is it Moldova?

First of all, every Moldovan either from the right or left bank of Dniester (Transnistria) is free to identify himself with this achievement or not to do so, said Vitalie Spranceana, a sociologist, blogger, journalist and urban activist. According to him, boycotting the football club for being a separatist team is wrong.

At the same time, “it’s an illusion to think that territory matters when it comes to football clubs,” Spranceana claimed. “Big teams, the ones included in the Champions League, have long lost their connection both with the countries in which they operate, and with the cities in which they appeared and to which they linked their history. […] In the age of globalized commercial football, teams, including the so-called local ones, are nothing more than global traveling commercial circuses, incidentally linked to cities, but more closely linked to all sorts of dirty, semi-dirty and cleaner cash flows.”

What is more important in this case is the consistency, not so much of citizens, as of politicians from the government who have “no right to celebrate the success of separatism,” as they represent “the national interests, not the personal or collective pleasures of certain segments of the population,” believes the political expert Dionis Cenusa. The victory of FC Sheriff encourages Transnistrian separatism, which receives validation now, he also stated.

“I don’t know how it happens that the “proud Moldovans who chose democracy”, in their enthusiasm for Sheriff Tiraspol’s victory over Real Madrid, forget the need for total and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria!” declared the journalist Vitalie Ciobanu.

Nowadays, FC Sheriff Tiraspol has no other choice than to represent Moldova internationally. For many years, the team used the Moldovan Football Federation in order to be able to participate in championships, including international ones. That is because the region remains unrecognised by the international community. However, the club’s victory is presented as that of Transnistria within the region, without any reference to the Republic of Moldova, its separatist character being applied in this case especially.

Is it a victory?

In fact, FC Sheriff Tiraspol joining the Champions League is a huge image breakthrough for the Transnistrian region, as the journalist Madalin Necsutu claimed. It is the success of the Tiraspol Club oligarchic patrons. From the practical point of view, FC Sheriff Tiraspol is a sports entity that serves its own interests and the interests of its owners, being dependent on the money invested by Tiraspol (but not only) oligarchs.

Here comes the real dilemma: the Transnistrian team, which is generously funded by money received from corruption schemes and money laundering, is waging an unequal fight with the rest of the Moldovan football clubs, the journalist also declared. The Tiraspol team is about to raise 15.6 million euro for reaching the Champions League groups and the amounts increase depending on their future performance. According to Necsutu, these money will go directly on the account of the club, not to the Moldovan Football Federation, creating an even bigger gab between FC Sheriff and other football clubs from Moldova who have much more modest financial possibilities.

“I do not see anything useful for Moldovan football, not a single Moldovan player is part of FC Sheriff Tiraspol. I do not see anything beneficial for the Moldovan Football Federation or any national team.”

Is it only about football?

FC Sheriff Tiraspol, with a total estimated value of 12.8 million euros, is controlled by Victor Gusan and Ilya Kazmala, being part of Sheriff Holding – a company that controls the trade of wholesale, retail food, fuels and medicine by having monopolies on these markets in Transnistria. The holding carries out car trading activities, but also operates in the field of construction and real estate. Gusan’s people also hold all of the main leadership offices in the breakaway region, from Parliament to the Prime Minister’s seat or the Presidency.

The football club is supported by a holding alleged of smuggling, corruption, money laundering and organised crime. Moldovan media outlets published investigations about the signals regarding the Sheriff’s holding involvement in the vote mobilization and remuneration of citizens on the left bank of the Dniester who participated in the snap parliamentary elections this summer and who were eager to vote for the pro-Russian socialist-communist bloc.

Considering the above, there is a great probability that the Republic of Moldova will still be represented by a football club that is not identified as being Moldovan, being funded from obscure money, growing in power and promoting the Transnistrian conflict in the future as well.

Photo: unknown

Politics

Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita meets high-ranking EU officials in Brussels

Published

3 years ago

September 27, 2021

Maria Dulgher

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Natalia Gavrilita, together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicu Popescu, pay an official visit to Brussels, between September 27-28, being invited by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles.

Today, Prime Minister had a meeting with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. The Moldovan PM thanked the senior European official for the support of the institution in strengthening democratic processes, reforming the judiciary and state institutions, economic recovery and job creation, as well as increasing citizens’ welfare. Natalia Gavrilita expressed her confidence that the current visit laid the foundations for boosting relations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, so that, in the next period, it would be possible to advance high-level dialogues on security, justice and energy. Officials also exchanged views on priorities for the Eastern Partnership Summit, to be held in December.

“The EU is open to continue to support the Republic of Moldova and the ambitious reform agenda it proposes. Moldova is an important and priority partner for us,” said Charles Michel.

Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita also met with Paolo Gentiloni, European Commissioner for Economy, expressing her gratitude for the support received through the OMNIBUS macro-financial assistance program. The two officials discussed the need to advance the recovery of money from bank fraud, to strengthen sustainable mechanisms for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in Moldova, and to standardize the customs and taxes as one of the main conditions for deepening cooperation with the EU in this field.

Additionally, Prime Minister spoke about the importance of the Eastern Partnership and the Deep Free Trade Agreement, noting that the Government’s policies are aimed at developing an economic model aligned with the European economic model, focused on digitalization, energy efficiency and the green economy.

A common press release of the Moldovan Prime Minister with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell Fontelles, took place today, where the agenda of Moldova’s reforms and the main priorities to focus on in the coming months were presented: judiciary reform; fighting COVID-19 pandemic; promoting economic recovery and conditions for growth and job creation; strengthening state institutions and resilience of the country.

“I am here to relaunch the dialogue between my country and the European Union. Our partnership is strong, but I believe there is room for even deeper cooperation and stronger political, economic and sectoral ties. I am convinced that this partnership is the key to the prosperity of our country and I hope that we will continue to strengthen cooperation.”

The Moldovan delegation met Didier Reynders, European Commissioner for Justice. Tomorrow, there are scheduled common meetings with Oliver Varhelyi, European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, Adina Valean, European Commissioner for Transport and Kadri Simson, European Commissioner for Energy.

Prime Minister will also attend a public event, along with Katarina Mathernova, Deputy Director-General for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.

Photo: gov.md

Politics

Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria

Published

3 years ago

September 21, 2021

Maria Dulgher

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The President of the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu, pays an official visit to New York, USA, between September 21-22. There, she participates in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. According to a press release of the President’s Office, the official will deliver a speech at the tribune of the United Nations.

In this context, the Promo-LEX Association suggested the president to request the appointment of a special rapporteur in order to monitor the situation of human rights in the Transnistrian region. According to Promo-LEX, the responsibility for human rights violations in the Transnistrian region arises as a result of the Russian Federation’s military, economic and political control over the Tiraspol regime.

“We consider it imperative to insist on the observance of the international commitments assumed by the Russian Federation regarding the withdrawal of the armed forces and ammunition from the territory of the country,” the representatives of Promo-LEX stated. They consider the speech before the UN an opportunity “to demand the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Russian Federation with reference to this territory which is in its full control.”

“It is important to remember about the numerous cases of murder, torture, ill-treatment, forced enlistment in illegal military structures, the application of pseudo-justice in the Transnistrian region, all carried out under the tacit agreement of the Russian Federation. These findings stem from dozens of rulings and decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Russia is responsible for human rights violations in the region.”

The association representatives expressed their hope that the president of the country would give priority to issues related to the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region and would call on relevant international actors to contribute to guaranteeing fundamental human rights and freedoms throughout Moldova.

They asked Maia Sandu to insist on the observance of the obligation to evacuate the ammunition and the military units of the Russian Federation from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, to publicly support the need for the Russian Federation to implement the ECtHR rulings on human rights violations in the Transnistrian region, and to request the appointment of an UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur to monitor the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.

The Promo-LEX Association concluded that 14 out of 25 actions planned within the National Action Plan for the years 2018–2022 concerning respecting human rights in Transnistria were not carried out by the responsible authorities.

The association expressed its concern and mentioned that there are a large number of delays in the planned results. “There is a lack of communication and coordination between the designated institutions, which do not yet have a common vision of interaction for the implementation of the plan.”

Promo-LEX requested the Government of the Republic of Moldova to re-assess the reported activities and to take urgent measures, “which would exclude superficial implementation of future activities and increase the level of accountability of the authorities.”

Photo: peacekeeping.un.org

Moldova.org

Politics

Transnistria: Use of Referendum as an instrument to manipulate the public opinion

Leave a Reply

Featured

FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?

Is it Moldova?

Is it a victory?

Is it only about football?

Politics

Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita meets high-ranking EU officials in Brussels

Politics

Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria

Latest News

“They are not needy, but they need help”. How Moldovan volunteers try to create a safe environment for the Ukrainian refugees

#WorldForUkraine – a map that shows the magnitude of the world’s actions against Russian aggression

How is Moldova managing the big influx of Ukrainian refugees? The authorities’ plan, explained

Russia And Ukraine At The Beginning of 2022

The man raising children on Nistru river

The village of the first astronomer in the Republic of Moldova

The prodigal son returns and turns his grandparents’ home in a tourist attraction on Nistru river

Opinions

FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?

Study// What is the reaction of authorities to journalistic investigations?

Secretary General of CoE called on Moldova’s state institutions to avoid constitutional crisis. Politicians took it the way they wanted.

Trending

Moldova.org

You may like

Leave a Reply

Featured

FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?

Is it Moldova?

Is it a victory?

Is it only about football?

Politics

Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita meets high-ranking EU officials in Brussels

Politics

Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria

Latest News

“They are not needy, but they need help”. How Moldovan volunteers try to create a safe environment for the Ukrainian refugees

#WorldForUkraine – a map that shows the magnitude of the world’s actions against Russian aggression

How is Moldova managing the big influx of Ukrainian refugees? The authorities’ plan, explained

Russia And Ukraine At The Beginning of 2022

The man raising children on Nistru river

The village of the first astronomer in the Republic of Moldova

The prodigal son returns and turns his grandparents’ home in a tourist attraction on Nistru river

Opinions

FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?

Study// What is the reaction of authorities to journalistic investigations?

Secretary General of CoE called on Moldova’s state institutions to avoid constitutional crisis. Politicians took it the way they wanted.

Trending