Welcome to My New Blog!
Finally, some of my ideas have begun materializing. For now, in a new blog. As promised, I am inviting you to visit my new blog which is about corporate social responsibility entitled Corporate and Responsible Blog .
Politics - policies - politics: a vicious circle or a continuously constructive tension that brings about change and development in the public (political) and private (individual) spheres of our lives? This blog is a forum for discussing various policies in Moldova and abroad.
Bine ati venit pe blogul Public Policy Watch - Politici Publice in Moldova, unde va invit sa discutam diferite politici publice din Moldova si lumea intreaga.
Finally, some of my ideas have begun materializing. For now, in a new blog. As promised, I am inviting you to visit my new blog which is about corporate social responsibility entitled Corporate and Responsible Blog .
I haven’t done much blogging in the last months. There are several reasons for such an extreme case of procrastination. First, I’m not aware of any policy or initiative undertaken by prime-minister Greceanii and her government worth talking about. Secondly, I’ve been using Facebook to share my personal adventures and pictures during what is, most likely, my last summer in Moldova. Thirdly, I’ve been thinking about a couple new projects. As soon as I get to a more advanced stage, I’ll post links here so that you can check them out yourself.
Below are some of my favorite pictures taken since my previous post.
Park Sculpture, Cartaret, New Jersey
Rockefeller Center, New York City
Union Square, New York City
Mountainbiking, Countryside, Moldova
African Ostrich, Bardar, Moldova
Public Park, Chisinau, Moldova
Poplars, Countryside, Moldova
I will miss your blog - I have been reading it for a long time now - almost since the start.
Yours is always an interesting and informed viewpoint. I did wonder whether you were (or had already) moved on to new projects since this blog was regularly written and widely read. I look forward to the links you will post with interest - Facebook is private after all!
It is sad that this will be your last summer in Moldova - a country from which so many talented people have had to leave.
I wish you well with what you do next.
Thanks for the blog,
David.
These pics are looking very beautiful. I really like these pics. Thanks for sharing such a nice pics.
After a seven-year-long disappointment with the leadership of Moldova's government - provided by the most-longevive Prime Minister, Mr. Tarlev - I can finally indulge in some optimism. The reason for such optimism is Moldova's new Prime Minister, Mrs. Zinaida Greceanii and her handpicked Cabinet of Ministers. Beside being a woman and bearing a physical resemblance to Margaret Thatcher , there are several important features that, in my view, distinguish her from the former PM and might make a difference in the way this country is governed.
- she is an experienced bureacrat;
- is politically-unaffiliated, at least officially;
- is a better speaker.
For now, that's about it. I am willing to give her and her team credit and even nurture a set of 'great expectations'. My expectations regard ANYBODY who becomes a Prime Minister in Moldova and since Mrs. Greceanii accepted this job, I will therefore make a (wish)list against which I will evaluate her performance until the end of her mandate. I expect my Prime Minister to:
- put public interest higher than her own and others' personal interests;
- take her job seriously (at least half as serious as Mrs. Thatcher);
- offer positive and demanding leadership;
- advocate for sustainable democratic institutions;
- communicate effectively with the public directly or via mass-media;
- be open to innovative ideas and proven best practices.
How difficult can it really be to fulfill these basic expections in a small country like Moldova?
P.S. Just noticed that Sandu Culiuc requested my opinion regarding Greceanii Government's priorities. I am not going to come up with anything new since a lot of analytical work has been already done for various other purposes (MCC Threshold Plan, National Development Strategy, various evaluations of EU-Moldova Action Plan, etc.) Greceanii Government's program reflects most of these priorities and is ambitious enough. So, all I will say now is that Greceanii's Government has a full plate and they better start working hard to prove there is political will for real reforms. The countdown against the 2009 parliamentary elections has begun :)
Posted by
Lucia
at
9:37 AM
Labels: Government , Moldova , Prime Minister
I don't know much about her, but if she's half as great as Maggie, Moldova will do well. I hope so.
being non affiliated to the comunists leaves her the possibility of safely continuing the political career in case the comunists loose the upcomming elections.
I enjoy reading this blog but its not written as frequently as it used to be.
Is Zinaida Greceanii not a communist?
I look forward to you telling us how she gets on with her new job...
David.
just like david, i enjoy reading your blog. it is through this that i learn more about your country and europe in general.
Financial Times makes an analysis of the serious political impasse faced by Romania. In its effort to fight wide-spread high-level corruption, the public decision making process has suffered the most and has come to a deadlock. Public servants are so afraid of being subject to allegations of corruption that they’ve been abstaining from making any type of spending decisions.
Civil servants are personally liable for any spending decision they approve. That may be a sound anti-corruption measure, but it means no one takes a decision.
Having clear majorities is indeed desirable for the Romanian political system, but it is questionable whether the proposed electoral reform is enough to change the political landscape. What Romania really needs is a far-reaching constitutional reform that transforms the bicameral system into a unicameral one. Even the semi-presidential system as such should be revisited because clear majorities would even work better with clearly divided powers and responsibilities.
Posted by
Lucia
at
4:27 PM
Labels: Corruption , Politics , Romania
The Moldovan President's recent interview to the Russian daily Kommersant made the headlines this week in local media. He announced that Moldova is soon to finally resolve the Transnistrian conflict with Russia's full support. Russia requires Moldova to do just one more thing: to prepare a declaration of neutrality and invite US, EU, OSCE, Russia and Ukraine to co-sign it. In other words, to officially abandon the possibility to join NATO in the future, thus remaining, for an indefinite time, in Russia's sphere of influence.
No problem. Moldova's Constitution already recognizes this status. However, public opinion has started questioning this status and hope of eventually changing it by moving closer to NATO was growing. To an international observer, Moldova's way of dealing with Russia over its Transnistrian conflict (and many other issues) might seem at least cowardly, particularly if compared to bold and defiant Georgia and assertive and colorful Ukraine. One would assume: different negotiation approaches - different outcomea and rewards. Not the case. How are Georgia and Ukraine being treated for openly defying Russia and aspiring to join the NATO and then EU? They get a cold shoulder from EU's and NATO's major player, Germany, in the face of Chancellor Angela Merkell who explicitely opposes the possibility that these two countries enter a new phase of their relationship with NATO - the Membership Action Plan(MAP).
"Countries that are involved in regional or internal conflicts can not become members [of the alliance]"
As someone interested in world politics, I find the Kosovo case extremely interesting from several points of view. It is unique. No other conflict in Europe attracted so much attention, involved so many interests and raised such controversy in the post-communist era. It is new. This example of contemporary history in making brings about unprecedented combinations of events, decisions and alliances. It is unpredictable. Nobody knows what the recent developments – the unilateral declaration of one province’s independence from an internationally-recognized sovereign state and its swift recognition by US and major EU states – will eventually lead to. Yet, almost all European states have concerns, fears and expectations stemming from the Kosovo case. Take Romania, for example. Therefore, the decision whether to recognize Kosovo’s independence or not is determined primarily by the self-interest of individual countries.
Moldova has not recognized Kosovo, and is not intending to. It has strong reasons for that. Moldova has a region that has unilaterally declared its independence long time ago - Transnistria. No other country has recognized it since then. Even Russia who has frequently threatened to recognize it if the West recognizes Kosovo, has abandoned this intention and is now trying to save face . Although the nature of the Transnistrian conflict is essentially different from the Kosovo case, the separatist leaders of Transnistria have rushed to urge the international community to apply the Kosovo resolution to their case.
Another observation is related to how a country is forced to take collective responsibility for the atrocity against human beings enacted by its past leadership and army. Perhaps the majority of democratic countries with respect for human life still perceive Kosovo as a victim and Serbia as an aggressor. This type of perception is very important in contemporary Europe, which values world and regional security higher than national and ethnic interests. This perception enables European countries to endorse an action contrary to the spirit and practice of international law in the area of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. I bet no country would want to be in Serbia’s shoes right now.
Posted by
Lucia
at
9:57 AM
Labels: Kosovo , Moldova , Serbia , Transnistria
This is an interesting topic and good point in that it seems the international community now always chooses the perceived victim over the perceived aggressor. Kosovo is the victim and instantly gets international recognition. Transnistria along with Russia are perceived as the aggressor and no one recognizes it.
Much more is being threatened by the Kosovo case. Here is a quite objective plea on behalf of Serbia and the international security system by Vuk Jeremic, Serbian Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I am glad you brought up this topic Lucia. Kosovo's independence was an interesting historical event. However, I am not yet convinced of the extent to which Moldova is really threatened by this independence. It seems that Moldovan officials are doing all the fuss more in support of Russia then out of concern for the future of Transnistria.
Let's put it that way - if Transnistria were to declare independence tomorrow - it will not be translated live on BBC and CNN Europe, nor will western leaders jump in to endorse it.
You also bring out an interesting point in the victimhood of Kosovo. People are always interested in jumping in to save the weak and vulnerable. But is this really helpful or is it a continuous manifestation of the power of those strong?
Cezara, thanks for your comment. Actually, I do not think that Kosovo's precedent is a threat to Moldovan territorial integrity. Actually, I agree with Nicu Popescu's analysisthat concludes that Kosovo's model is hardly comparable and/or applicable to Transnistria's case.
However, I do agree with Dima Minzarari's conclusion and Vuk Jeremic's plea that the Kosovo's case defitily sets a dangerous precedent for the violation of the international law and territorial integrity of sovereign states and eventually threatens the world security.
yeah, nobody wants to be in serbia's shoes today, and even fewer would like to be in Kosovar's shoes in 1999. at the end of the day nobody threatens serbs with killing, expulsion and the like.
A joke from Belgrade: " we would do anything for Kosovo, except live there"
to Anonymous:
Well, killing was on both parts, besides that, as I wrote in the post on my blog, if it was to punish Belgrade, it should have been done then, earlier, when Milosevic was forced to yield to the West, and not todays Serbian government, who is no authoritarian, and able/willing to provide for large autonomy. It is wrong to play the god, braking international law to supposedly punish Serbs for what their Milosevic government did. It is a return to Metternich Europe. Besides, in this part of Europe people was and still is willing to die for their land, which means taking their territory is much much worse than killing them.
Excellent blog, I'm looking for information on how to improve my health because I have some problems with my hair, so I would like to help me with advice on the subject, thanks!
Really like this website, this really helps and very useful.
This blog is amazing!!!i stay impressive with the whole information because is absolutely interesting and wonderful .I like the new ideas raised in this blog. Simply wonderful. i love the shoes, it drives me crazy.i usually go shopping, specially to buy shoes.
and i buy viagra too just for enjoy my sexual life.
Today I came across an article about something I, too, have been pondering lately, namely a relatively recent fashion of identifying and ranking Moldovan VIPs, practiced by local mass media outlets. In this article, Vadim Tataru of the Civic Action wonders whether such ratings, instead of acknowledging real achievements and performance, in fact manipulate public opinion by creating the illusion that the shortlisted individuals are indeed very important and influential people in the Moldovan society.
Vadim Tataru's article describes the methodology which must be employed if the intended result is a credible and reliable VIP rating. Instead of using a sociologically-sound methodology, Moldovan media outlets tend to use rummors, cliches and unverified information as basis for their ratings. As a result, VIP ratings feature individuals of questionable influence such as singers Cleopatra and Pavel Stratan, but fail to include truly influential people such as the trainer of the national football team, Igor Dobrovolski.
Although a number of media try out such ratings, the most assertive is the local VIP Magazin with a flattering motto: "The magazine of famous people". Every Sunday afternoon there is a VIP Magazin program on ProTV featuring various people from politics, business, media, culture, etc. I actually don't mind reading and watching these people talk about their lives and careers as most of them are interesting. What I do mind, however, is their random labeling as a VIP, which in my understanding should be a person of outstanding achievement and significant positive influence on the development of the society. Unless a mass-media outlet can afford to use a scientifically-sound methodology properly, any half-way attempt is bound to result in a dishonorable exercise of public manipulation.
P.S. After having posted this, I found another ongoing online rating. This time the online magazine LadyClub.md wishes to identify the degree of sexiness of 18 Moldovan politicians. By the way, many of these people are among Moldovan VIPs.
Welcome to celebrity gossip culture. The next step is the Paris Hilton phenomena, people who don't actually do anything and are famous just for being famous.
I do think there is something in human nature that this fulfills. Chimpanzees meticulously observe and keep track of the social hierarchy of their group. The #1 male had a baby with the #2 female but is spending a lot of time grooming the #3 female which makes the #4 male upset. The ability to do this is considered one of the driving forces in the evolution of larger brains. Human primates live in much larger groups and can no longer directly observe everyone, but still instinctually want to do something like this.
Hi,
You are right but I think it's not a proper way to be famous.
========================================
simon
Social Bookmarking
Moderate posting....Need to be more informative.....
I hope this blog will do better in next time.
Bathmate
The timeframe allowed for the implementation of the EU-Moldova Action Plan (EUMAP) is bound to expire soon. This makes Moldovan analysts and think-tanks attempt to reveal the reasons why the implementation of EUMAP has failed. To date, there is an overall consensus regarding the complete failure of the EUMAP. The latest study undertaken by analyst Dumitru Minzarari and IDIS Viitorul is a good read for those still wondering why the gap between European and Moldovan quality of life standards has been widening rather than narrowing and why there is so much talk and so little performance on behalf of public institutions.
The conclusion of the study is that the current government never really intended to implement the measures forseen in EUMAP because by reforming the judiciary sector, strengthening independent mass-media and democratic institutions, it would have eroded all the benefits it currently derives from the status-quo. However, it gained time and political capital by PRETENDING to implement it. The study also factors in Russia's open resistance to Moldova's possibility of joining EU.
The study contains an idea for overcoming the problem. The scenario proposes Moldovan non-governmental organizations establish and maintain an alternative cooperation forum with the Visegrad countries' governments and NGOs (Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland) to mobilize alternative resources around the Moldovan European integration aspirations and implement the EUMAP. Basically, to create an alternative pseudo-government to do the job of the inefficient Moldovan government with the support of several EU countries. Although I agree with the description of the problem, I find the proposed solution neither justified nor feasible. We may want a positive change in the quality of governance, but the way to pursue change is not by creating an illegitimate replacement for the current government thus creating false expectations misplacing the object and burden of accountability. Since only citizens, represented by competing political parties, can change the government in a democracy, they need to be further educated in exercising tighter control over their government, demanding and recognizing real progress. It may take a longer time, but this is the only way change will translate into progress.
Posted by
Lucia
at
2:17 PM
Labels: Democracy , EU-Moldova Action Plan , Visegrad group
Thanks for contributing to the debate around my study on EUMAP. Although I’d be very grateful if you could do it on my blog as well, since I believe your contribution will help to diversify and enrich the discussion.
Now responding to this post: it seems to me that you have misunderstood the model of a solution that I suggested in my study. I did not propose to “to create a pseudo-government”. What I propose is a parallel structure (“highway”) of cooperation between an organized and interested sector of Moldovan civil society and EU, which will result in certain goals to be achieved. First it will make the process of EUMAP implementation more transparent, both to the Western partners and the body of citizens that are misinformed by the ruling authorities on the progress of EUMAP. Second, it will make the process more dynamic, bringing in the push effect on the government. Civil society may become an element of the checks and balances mechanisms which is basically non-existent in Moldova. This will empower civil society, making it more influent and involved in political life in Moldova. In fact EU has already made certain steps in this direction, asking NGOs for help in evaluating the progress of the EUMAP, and my suggestion is just a possible logical extension of this endeavor.
Why civil society groups? Because, except for political parties, they are the only organized and qualified force, relatively independent, that can act as an effective counterbalance to the government, helping to prevent abuses of power. And if you want to be solution-oriented, you will use the tools that are at your disposal (while developing others, more effective). So, I do not suggest the creation of an “illegitimate replacement” of government, since the development of democratic institutions, the promotion of a democratic culture among population is not actually only the job of the government, but of the civil society as well. In fact, it is one of the main tasks of civil society, in authoritarian political systems, and that is exactly what is being built in Moldova, as I argue in my study. And this in no case will create “false expectations” and so on. The model I suggest may work as a pressure tool on the government to advance toward democratic development.
One of the main problems I identified is the fact that the current government has built a power structure that gives them the monopoly over the whole political and economic spectrum. Dismounting the institutional checks and balances they created a political system that does not allow for genuine political competition, and helps them to stay in power. However being smart enough to not make it obvious the Communist leadership (which controls the government) have created a democratic façade of the political system, while inside governmental institutions follow the autocratic rules of the game. So, implementing EUMAP would mean destroying this architecture, which was erected during the last 7 years. That is why PCRM has purposely frozen the progress of the EUMAP, only imitating progress. Which means you cannot convince/constrain them to proceed with real democratic reforms, unless you have leverage. I explained why opposition cannot do this. So the only socially organized structure that exists in Moldova is the still weak civil society.
I also have identified as one of the main obstacle toward the implementation of EUMAP (read development of democratic institutions) the lack of democratic culture among the majority of the population, its ignorance, passiveness, indifference and the state of being cut off from the political process. This means it cannot perform its function of “exercising tighter control over their government, demanding and recognizing real progress”. And one of the main goals of the NGOs framework that I suggest is exactly to educate people, cultivate the democratic culture among the citizenry, at least until a critical mass of such people is built. This cannot be achieved soon, and to be effective one needs a strategic approach, meaning focusing funds efforts into projects that build upon each other, and are not only separate, individual, one-time endeavors as is the case now in Moldova.
The Visegrad 4+1 umbrella that I suggested could follow the Translation model of the Actor-Network Theory (http://www.answers.com/topic/actor-network-theory?cat=technology, borrowing from the four stages of it, why not?). In fact it can be considered as a more effective and systemic approach to the democratic institution building process in Moldova, where the main actor is a “corporation” of organized members from civil society, running projects that like bricks in a wall are built one upon another, focusing on a single goal – cultivating democratic culture. It should also make use of the Smelser’s value-added model of collective behavior (Social Movement: An introduction, Donatella Della Porta&Mario Diani, p.7) – creating a social structure that may facilitate or constrain the emergence of specific types of collective behavior; structural strain; growth and spread of generalized belief; precipitating factors; mobilization; and operation of social control. It looks unusual, I agree, but in Moldova, this is the only way, in my view, to create a good balance to the increasingly authoritarian government. Then, while becoming a force to be reckoned with, civil society will concurrently educate a critic mass of people, that will become the second pillar in this “systemic” checks and balances mechanism. And only then, will be possible to convince the leadership to allow for institutional checks and balances to function.
Dumitru, thank you for your thorough explanation. I agree with you that the theory looks very appealing. However, I am really skeptical - and skepticism is not my habit - that something like this could work in Moldova. There are so many positive practices successfully implemented in the rest of the world that fail to thrive in Moldova. Why? Your study identified several of the many reasons.
How long will European integration efforts in Moldova be mearely a theatrical performance? Nobody knows... Judging by the political and social trends in Moldova, I tend to believe that even if the country one day becomes part of EU, it will most likely happen due to other developments in the region (e.g. Ukraine's joining EU, stronger assertion of EU's interests) rather than to hard work on behalf of Moldova (government, civil society and common citizenry) in advancing economic and social reforms or gains from a smart foreign policy. The fact that Moldova as a country demonstrated such limitted capacity and willingness to contribute to its development is what is what I find most disturbing.
Practitioners are often skeptical about new, untested theories. It is normal. However one should not reject new ideas just because they seem to go against what became an almost habit in the field of development.
There are many good practices and success stories in other parts of the world, but trying stubbornly to use them in every single case may lead us right into the “one size fits all’ trap. I am arguing that post-Soviet space is a different “planet” which requires new approaches. I can even go further and insist that what has been done in other parts of the world, developing institutions, is already achieved in here. And they can function perfectly, but because of the lack of control (the eternal checks and balances problem), there is huge room for abuses. However, a critical mass of people with the “right” mindset would be able to fulfill this “control” function.
But it is a mistake to think that they must transform overnight, just because “democracy is good”. Culture is a socially constructed behavior, and it needs to be practiced in order to be accepted, developed, and acquire roots. So, in the language of military strategists the education of people is a “center of gravity” of the democratic transition process in Moldova. Unless we don’t educate a critical mass of people, we will not advance in this regard. What I suggested in the study is meant to tackle exactly this problem. There may be other methods as well. However, just waiting, without doing anything, is only going to make it worse. I believe that lack of progress is nothing but regress.
The last waves of EU enlargement have taught Brussels a good lesson. I don’t think they will accept soon countries which are not up to scratch. And it is my wild guess that they will pay increasing attention to the existence of a democratic culture, and acceptance of democratic values among the citizenry. Because regardless how shiny a state may look outside, the real indicator of a country’s democratic progress is its population. Ukraine will not be soon an EU member and neither will be Moldova. But judging just by size, it is easier for Moldova to advance in this regard, than it is for Ukraine. So, this should be our job. And we must not be disturbed by the fact that “Moldova as a country demonstrated limited capacity“ on its democratic transition path. It’s not Moldova that failed so far, but it is Moldovan elite that became the obstacle. When you know the problem, and there is a wide-spread agreement about it, then it is easier to solve it.
nu era nevoie sa se faca un studiu ca sa ajunga la concluzia asta. Din start e clar care e situatia. ar trebui sa se studieze mijloacele prin care guvernarea si-ar schimba convingerile. dar sa fie niste solutii realiste si nu din alea scoase din vise. la constatat ne pricepem toti
Daca facem un efort sa iesim din gaoacea numita Botanica, Centru, sau chiar Chisinau, devine clar, ca un asa studiueste necesar. Cind cineva minte, si toti tac, minciunosul va continua sa minta, iar multi il vor crede. Daca indici clar, ca a fost prins, atunci cel putin va abandona minciunile curente. Daca citeai atent, atunci intelegeai, ca studiul indica: guvernarea nu doreste sa faca schimbari, fiindca nu exista presiune asupra ei, iar presiunea ar trebui sa fie facuta din partea maselor. Iar ca acest lucru sa se intimple, este necesar de o populatie cu o alta cultura politica. Si s-a sugerat cum ar fi posibil acest lucru. Daca consideri ca este sugestia care este rupta de realitate, atunci asa este. Atit timp cit o persoana, care tine in mina sa un telfon mobil, crede ca acesta este doar un bulgar, atunci telefonul va putea fi folosit doar in calitate de bulgar.
Hm, am citit studiul, mi-au plăcut unele idei. Dar lipsesc multe amănunte, în studiu e vorba mai mult despre cadrul general, decât despre Planul de Acţiuni. CE s-a făcut şi ce nu, vreau mai multe detalii.
Grupul de la Vişegrad este deja istorie, scopul său a fost să aducă statele membre în UE. După îndeplinirea scopului, când ne referim la Grupul de la Visegrad vorbim despre istorie.
Mai util ar fi să ne gândim cum să utilizăm vecinul nostru pentru a ajunge mai repede în UE. Apropo despre Ţările Baltice şi despre România nu există nici o recomandare.
Detalii sunt in evaluarile prezentate ca referinta. Scopul studiului nu a fost prezentarea detaliilor de progres, caci astfel de studii deja au fost facute. DP2 a facut o analiza mai mult sistemica, respingind afirmatiile precum ca guvernarea a facut succese, aducind dovezi cuantificabile (ma repet, scopul este indicat la inceputul lucrarii, cu concluzia dupa partea principala).
La fel, in comentariile pe blogul meu , si aici, mi-am scris opinia, argumentind, ca grupul visegrad NU este istorie, si ca exista eforturi de a reanima aceasta structura inghetata. Am indicat si la alte motive, de ce anume GV si nu altii (blogul meu). Romania nu poate deveni un astfel de actor pentru ca a) nu are resurse, luptindu-se ea insasi cu multe probleme pe care le confrunta Moldova; b) detine mult mai putina inredere din partea sturcturilor europene; c) cit de banal nu ar suna dar are mai putin interes sa ajute Moldova fara a politiza lucrurile; d) implicarea Romaniei ar genera tensiune in societate, creind linii de diviziune, fapt care ar putea servi in detrimentul proiectului; e) Romania insasi este mult mai slaba din toate punctele de vedere decit GV, care deja am indicat (blogul meu) este conectat printr-o retea de interdependenta complexa; f) ajutorul din partea soc. civ. a celor patru GV cu timpul ar oferi un lobby substantial mai puternic pentru Moldova, inclusiv pentru a dezamorsa tensiunile Rusiei.
In ce priveste statele baltice, din nou, am explicat deja in comentarii anterioare, ele au mai putine resurse, au interese mai mici in Moldova, si se bucura de o autoritate mai slaba din partea autoritatilor moldovenesti, iar una din sarcina "ajutorilor" Moldovei ar trebui sa fie capacitatea de a convinge guvernarea sa faca anumiti pasi.
Revenind la Romania - ea de fapt nici nu doreste sa ne ajute, priviti doar exemplul vizelor cit de politizat este, intentionat de fapt, caci alte state Schengen si SUA ofera vize mult mai usor. Indiferent de preferintele noastre ideologice/spirituale/nationale, etc. trebuie sa fim pragmatici, si sa alegem cai, care ar putea oferi maximum eficienta in o perioada de timp minima.
Dumitru, Cehia, si Slovacia sunt de 15 ori mai putin interesate de moldova decat statele baltice (care nu sunt nici ele prea interesate).
Stimate concetatean (asa mi se pare). Daca ne vom vaicara de toate problemele, si vom privi pesimist la toate lucrurile, pai vom intilni si veacul 22 in o societate agrara, pre-industriala. Trebuie de gindit pozitiv, de actionat creativ si dinamic. Lipsa de cunostinte nu ne permite sa vedem multe oportunitati, atunci sa invatam, sa nu fim miopi. Sanse ideale pentru un stat mic si slab ca Moldova nu vor exista nicioadata, caci loserii nu vad sanse chiar daca acestea sunt sub nasul lor. De fapt sanse ideale in genere nu exista. Asemenea cum serfing-istul prinde valul si urca pe el, fiind minat de energia apei, la fel si noi trebuie sa prindem posibile valuri si sa le incalecam. Am scris deja de ce statele baltice sunt mai putin atractive in contextul discutiei date decit statele Visegrad. Am scris deja care sunt posibilitatile si deschiderile oferite de o posibila incercare de a folosi grupul celor patru. Daca ne uitam, nimeni nu are interes sa ne ajute, atunci ce, sa ridicam drapelul alb, si sa declaram autodezmembrare? Daca insasi actori guvernamentali si non-guvernamentali din statele Vissegrad declara ca sunt disponibili sa ne ajute in integrarea europeana, de ce trebuie sa strigam la fiecare colt ca ei nu sunt intradevar interesati, etc.? Interesul exista si unele elemente ale lui le-am expus in studiu - atunci sa-l exploatam si sa-l facem mai mare. Cred ca ducem lipsa de cunostinte, ingeniozitate, gindire strategica, curaj, sprit intreprinzator si chiar de aventurism, care la fel este necesar. Nimic personal, doar o opinie generala.
Foto:www.deca.md
Now that the long Moldovan holidays are over, besides such events as abundant snowfall that made the traffic even more difficult, and the car accident caused by Mayor of Chisinau, I hear people talking and writing about failures. Failure to successfully implement laws, policies and plans, failure to reform public institutions, failure of Moldovan citizenry to demand a better political representation and government.
It is too bad we are starting off a brand new year with such a poor progress evaluation. However, it is good to see some people feel compelled and independent enough to deliver the bad news. To continue the previous discussion about the well-being of Moldovan public institutions, let’s take the case of the public TV&Radio company Teleradio-Moldova. Two members of the company’s supervisory board published a report which spells out some facts and figures that suggest an extremely poor management of this important but highly-vulnerable public institution. For example, out of all television companies active in the country (about 7), the public TV Moldova1 with 92% coverage has merely a 4.7% audience. In addition, the report provides a colorful picture of how the company is managed on everyday basis, including its human resources, finances, public relations. Evidently, in this picture, the director of the company does not look very good. So, he decides to sue the authors of the report - and the organization they are affiliated with - for libel.
Will have to see what the court – another public institution – decides in this case. For now, however, I look at this report as a favor to the public in the sense that it provides some hard evidence (although, I must admit, still poorly documented and referenced) about the quality of management of one of its key institutions – the national television and radio. It does provide some answers to those of us wondering why the quality of Moldova1 and Radio Moldova programs reached a level so low it is below any criticism.
Posted by
Lucia
at
7:50 PM
Labels: Moldova , Public Institutions , Radio , TV
Comments:
DRAGA LUCIA,
de un milion de ani ma tot pregatesc sa intru pe aici si sa-ti las un gand de bine... Am venit acum cand, probabil, tu incerci sa-ti indrepti toate gandurile de bine spre R. Moldova.
sper sa iti mearga bine in continuare! super articol!
It was very interesting for me to read that blog. Thank you for it. I like such topics and anything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more soon.
Alex
Phone blocker
hello friends,
I am newcome here and , trying to gain facts of some things here.
Sorry for my bad english i m Belarus
Thanks.
[url=http://www.camspotadult.com]camspotadult.com[/url]
Blogurile despre politica sunt binevenite... Asa ne invatam sa participam!
patriotica.wordpress.com