Promo-LEX Programme Director Nicolae Panfil gave an interview for the FES/APE foreign policy newsletter, in which we discussed the results of the parliamentary elections and the main findings of PromoLex’s monitoring of the electoral process. We also discussed what we can do to have an inclusive Parliament, given that citizens have consistently stated, since the accession to the EU was enshrined in the Constitution, that the Republic of Moldova must continue its European path with determination. We invite you to read all these ideas in detail in the following interview:

Broadly speaking, what are the most important irregularities you have noticed in this parliamentary election campaign? Who committed them and how did they manifest themselves?

First of all, it was a pretty intense campaign, which is what everyone we talk to and discuss with says. It’s not just our perception, even though we, as observers, are maybe used to this. The intensity or tension was mainly due to the geopolitical context we’re in. On the one hand, we are talking about the aspirations of the majority of citizens for European integration, as seen in the vote cast, but also in the election campaign run by PAS, because they largely focused on this goal.

At the same time, we all know that there was a lot of pressure from outside. The foreign interference we are talking about refers to the Russian Federation, which, as in last year’s elections, manifested itself through illegal financing, support for political actors, and schemes to corrupt voters. But even more interestingly, it seems that this time special operations have also been carried out through social media, intensifying hybrid attacks and pressure on public institutions.

So there were several phenomena, and the intensity of the campaign was also influenced by this construction of narratives and disinformation. In my opinion, even more emphasis was placed than last year on constructing false narratives, including the fact that the elections were rigged. This was discussed weeks before election day, claiming that the elections in the diaspora were rigged, and so on and so forth. In conclusion, it was a tense campaign, with pressure on everyone – voters, institutions, etc.

Excessive use of hate speech

How often and who used hate speech? Which groups were most targeted?

We monitored hate speech in the context of the elections. If we were to talk in terms of numbers, there were over 400 cases of hate speech monitored by our colleagues and monitors, and 300 of these cases were in the electoral context. I should mention that about 75 percent of these were promoted through social media, and the groups targeted were mostly electoral competitors and citizens based on criteria such as political affiliation, gender and sexual orientation, health, and ethnicity.

Hate speech was used extensively by some top politicians in the Republic of Moldova, such as Igor Dodon and Ion Ceban, but also by other less popular politicians, such as Victoria Furtună.

Were there any hate speech messages from PAS members? Do you monitor such cases?

We know that certain messages with negative connotations from the PAS campaign were discussed and attempted to be presented in the public sphere. Allegations were made that this constituted hate speech. Some electoral competitors complained about this.

Our colleagues who monitored the situation using an internationally recognised methodology did not consider the PAS messages that were discussed in public to be hate speech. There were negative campaigns, there was black PR, but we cannot classify it as hate speech. Instead, we saw how hate speech was most frequently used against PAS.

Need for social reconciliation

How would you characterise the entire election campaign? There are voices saying that it was one of the dirtiest and that society was polarised to the maximum. How did you perceive it? How much need is there now for reconciliation in this extremely divided society?

As a well-informed journalist, you know that this was also discussed in previous elections – after last year’s presidential elections and referendum – about the need for reconciliation in our divided and polarised society.

It is good that we had elections and that we are always in a position to confirm or promote our electoral democracy, but it seems that we need a little time between elections to be able to consolidate and grow something. Because election periods are always heated and cause divisions in society. I hope that in the coming years, excluding any periods of instability, the new Parliament will manage to work in a more inclusive manner.

First of all, it needs to start with the work of Parliament itself. I can say that the previous legislature was not very inclusive. The opposition was not very involved and was marginalised, which had a negative impact on legislative activity. This was detrimental to society, which did not have access to high-quality public debates.

All electoral competitors should now understand that the elections are over. In my opinion, the results are quite clear and it is time to get to work. In my view, for the next few years, I would say that, through the citizens’ elections, society has reconfirmed that the European path is the way forward. At the same time, political actors must understand that these are the citizens’ elections and must respect their decision as expressed through their vote.

This does not mean that there cannot be debates on various issues in Parliament and in society, but this is a matter for Parliament, civil society and political parties.

At the same time, I believe that the state’s law enforcement agencies should continue to combat foreign interference, particularly in terms of electoral corruption, foreign interference with money in political financing, and so on. But also in terms of disinformation, so that we can be better prepared and better protected against the Russian Federation. Each actor needs to do its part in its own area.

Restrictions motivated by security interests?

There have been accusations that the voting process was restricted for those in the Transnistrian region. How do you see things and was the reduction from 30 to 12 polling stations for residents on the left bank of the Nistru justified?

We know that the authorities cited security reasons, including for reducing the number of polling stations. Subsequently, there were also decisions to relocate polling stations. When you look at it from one side, all of this seems to be related, being justified by major security concerns.

From our perspective, and also in our interim reports, we have emphasised that we do not consider the reduction in the number of polling stations to be justified. We were referring to an analysis we conducted in 2021, when we said that 28 polling stations would be an acceptable number to ensure free voting for citizens in the region, without any tension or animosity.

What is disturbing now is that this story has created false narratives. At one point, fake accounts were even created, for example, of the Central Electoral Commission, to promote them. There was an attempt to exploit these things extensively, and I don’t know if it was worth it. I don’t know if the security concerns were that serious, compared to those narratives and the effects generated by propaganda as a countereffect.

Let us admit that the authorities had reasons to be concerned, but at least now that the elections are over, it would be good to communicate publicly what those reasons were.

The Intelligence and Information Service and the police have to communicate exactly what the security considerations were for limiting voting in the Transnistrian region, so that society can be reassured. Otherwise, the perception will persist that the decision was made for other reasons. The investigation into the cases of mining of bridges and polling stations, etc., must certainly continue. Law enforcement agencies need to explain what has been identified or who has been punished, if anyone.

We must all bear in mind in the coming period, especially state institutions, the need to increase trust in public institutions. I was talking to some international observers the other day about these situations [regarding the vote in Transnistria – ed.] and asked them whether in Germany, for example, such messages would have been communicated – that there are security risks in certain polling stations – and how society would have reacted. Would they have trusted it? And the answer was, for the most part, yes. That is precisely why we need to increase trust, and this can only be achieved through communication and transparency.

Social media populism versus legislative work

How do you view the entry into Parliament of two populist party leaders – Renato Usatîi and Vasile Costiuc – and how do you think this will affect the legislative process? Will they bring any added value or will they just launch into actions that they can then promote on social media?

Having seen them both during the election campaign, but also before these elections, and knowing them both from the public sphere, we probably cannot imagine that such strong personalities as they are will disappear, nor will their showmanship in the mass media or on social media. They will probably continue in the same way, but the important thing is that all MPs were elected to Parliament to represent the citizens. Earlier, I was talking about the need for Parliament to work in an inclusive manner. These MPs and smaller factions need to be drawn into the real work that Parliament has to do.

We do not need MPs who are just putting on a show. We need transparency and communication. They certainly have the necessary communication skills and the ability to reach citizens. This will also put pressure on the majority faction. But more than that, everyone needs to roll up their sleeves and work constructively in Parliament.

Because we know that the problems of citizens are also those of the people who voted for PAS and who voted for Renato Usatîi or Vasile Costiuc. The problems are the same. I don’t see why they couldn’t work together. Of course, they may have different views, but that’s why we need discussions, we need debates.

And I believe that the next Parliament will still be one in which we, as citizens, will have a little more opportunity to follow what is happening and how the debates and discussions take place. We know from the previous legislature that the Socialists and Communists often sat out the debate on various bills, and the PAS voted alone, without much discussion. I hope that this time we will have the opportunity to see different kinds of debates in Parliament.

Thank you!