Moldova's European Integration: How to Avoid Failure
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.
Comments:
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.