Moldova: what does Maia Sandu's victory mean?
Maia Sandu will continue as president in Moldova. In the run-off election the pro-Western leader was around ten percentage points ahead of her pro-Russian challenger Alexandr Stoianoglo. In a referendum held parallel to the first round of voting on 20 October, a wafer-thin majority of citizens voted in favour of writing EU accession into the constitution as an irrevocable goal. Commentators see a worryingly divided country.
Dangerous image of a divided country
The differences in voting behaviour within the country are worrying, writes Florin Negruțiu in republica.ro: Russia's biggest victory in the Republic of Moldova is to have conveyed an image of a divided country and created the impression that there is a civil war. There are districts in Moldova where people voted just like in Russia. In Moscow all I saw was a caricature of an election, with Soviet dances, songs and Moldavians dreaming of living in the USSR. Within the Republic of Moldova, the contrast between areas like Gagauzia (where Stoianoglo won with 97 percent), Taraclia (94 percent for Stoianoglo), Ocnița (74 percent), Briceni (71 percent) and Edineț (67 percent), and the capital Chișinău and the diaspora, where people voted in favour of Maia Sandu and Europe, is shocking.
The pro-European diaspora cannot be bought
Writing on agora.md, commentator Laurențiu Pleșca stresses the important economic and political role that Moldovans living abroad play for their country:
“With the money they send back to the country and their investments in local businesses, the diaspora plays a central role in Moldova's development. Although they live far away, Moldovans in the diaspora maintain contact with their country and actively contribute to the democratic process with their vote. And unlike votes at home, their votes cannot be bought. The diaspora has often swayed election results in favour of pro-European reforms, because they want Moldova to belong to the European community. ... That is why the majority vote pro-European: they want to bring Europe to their home with their vote.”
EU must not give in
The narrow victories of the pro-EU parties should give the EU pause for thought, La Croix warns:
“This vote shows how easily the hopes raised by the prospect of joining the EU can be dashed by the reality of a difficult daily life and by the manipulation of information from Moscow. ... European support for Kyiv remains strong, but it is not enough to secure a victory. Two years after the huge wave of solidarity that swept across the continent from west to east, doubt and fatigue prevail. ... But the EU must not give in to resignation. ... The future of our democracies continues to be decided in these far-flung border regions that are facing Russian imperialism. The resistance must be both firm and stubborn.”
Do more to communicate the peace course
Sandu should have made her position much clearer in the election campaign, the Romanian service of Deutsche Welle remarks:
“Those who accuse the head of state's election team of failing to do enough to counter the Russian narrative that 'Maia Sandu means war' are right. Because Sandu did not explain to voters that it is the other way round. Nor did they sufficiently explain the current government's efforts to maintain peace in the Republic of Moldova. We were relieved not to have [the pro-Russian former president Igor] Dodon as leader of the state in such difficult times, as he would have allowed Russian troops to rotate and consolidate in Transnistria for an attack from the rear on Ukraine.”