Moldova: what is the lesson from the close EU vote?
The citizens of the Republic of Moldova have voted by a knife-edge majority of 50.4 percent in favour of writing EU accession into the constitution as an irrevocable goal. The first round of the presidential election, which took place simultaneously, failed to produce a decisive result. Incumbent president Maia Sandu - who claims there is evidence that pro-Russian forces bought votes - faces a run-off vote. Europe's press takes a closer look.
Pro-Europeans need to seek consensus
The Moldovan online portal agora.md suspects that the narrow outcome of the referendum will prompt the pro-European forces to change course:
“The razor-thin victory is not only due to Russia's interference. It could force the ruling party to readjust its strategies and messages in order to reach voters in the districts that are far away from the capital, as well as the country's Russian-speaking voters. The pro-Europeans will have to acknowledge that there is a significant section of the population that does not share their views and they will have to find ways to achieve a national consensus on the European agenda.”
Answer questions about election fraud
Deutsche Welle's Romanian Service stresses the need to determine the truth behind the vote-buying allegations:
“The result of the referendum was extremely close and there is huge public pressure. People feel cheated and expect their vote to be defended. They expect the authorities to tell them how the fraud was possible and why it couldn't be prevented. What is the evidence that President Maia Sandu is referring to? What will happen to those who rigged the vote, and also to those who have admitted that their vote was bought? ... Without clear answers to these questions, the result of the presidential run-off could be disastrous.”
Attempt to buy the vote has failed
Putin's plan has failed, The Times rejoices:
“The result, though wafer thin, ... reaffirmed Moldova's commitment to a democratic future in the face of Russia's revisionist attempts to regain dominance over its 'near abroad'. It was also a waste of an estimated 100 million in bribes spent by Moscow to buy the vote. ... The referendum result will give heart to Ukraine, which itself seeks a future inside the EU. But it is a reminder also of the effectiveness of Mr Putin's election tampering, now a feature of western elections. He came very close to succeeding in Moldova's referendum.”
Slap in the face for Brussels
The referendum result is a slap in the face for Brussels, Trud counters:
“For a poor country on the EU's borders, scraping past a 'no' by just a few hundred votes is a disgrace. In 2003 Hungary voted by a majority of 83 percent in favour of joining, and in Slovakia it was 93 percent. Any result below 60 percent in favour of EU accession is a disaster. Moldova ranks 93rd in the world in terms of per capita gross domestic product, just behind Botswana. Fifteen years ago it would have been unthinkable for Moldovans to be undecided about whether they wanted to join the 'club of the rich'.”
A courageous president
The Aargauer Zeitung pays tribute to Sandu and draws parallels with another country caught between the EU and Russia:
“A showdown is currently taking place in Moldova and Georgia where the outcome is either freedom and democracy with Europe or servitude and autocracy with Russia. ... Fortunately, there is an active, pro-European civil society in both countries. And both Moldova and Georgia have courageous female presidents who are doing their utmost to stay on a pro-Western course - despite the fact that Russia has already stationed thousands of soldiers on their territory. This bravery deserves recognition and respect.”
The West's dilemma
Göteborgs-Posten casts about for ways in which Russia's democratic neighbours can reduce the latter's influence:
“When corruption, bribery and political violence are the order of the day, Moscow's world view is to some extent legitimised. That is why Moscow likes to target weak and easily infiltrated countries like Moldova. Criminal gangs and corrupt politicians are a godsend for Russian intelligence. For the West, this poses a dilemma. Responding in kind confirms Moscow's narrative and is less acceptable to the domestic audience. On the other hand, simply watching is not a very attractive option either. The only alternative is to take a long-term approach aimed at strengthening independent and liberal institutions.”