On TV, Natalia Morari wears severe spectacles and her hair pulled back into a bun, as though she were trying to look older. Every weekday, this 27 year-old journalist hosts a 90-minute debate on Publika, the Moldovan private TV channel. And everyone is able to speak out freely, which is quite a feat in Moldova.
In April 2009, Morari was a figurehead in the "Twitter revolution", a revolt by Moldovan youth in protest against the communist stranglehold on power. The social networks played a decisive role, thanks to Twitter and Odnoklassniki, the Russian equivalent of Facebook.
In their coverage, the world's media focused on Morari, who had already come to public attention. In December 2007, she had been expelled from Russia where she had lived for five years, after she wrote about corruption there. "I should send a postcard to the FSB the Russian security services to thank them," she laughed.
The 2009 protests brought elections and the formation of an Alliance for European Integration, which encompassed several small parties. However, the Alliance, despite having brought about some clear changes, has lost much of its support. "After eight years without any political opposition under the communists, a new elite can't just appear overnight," Morari said.
Free speech in Moldova has, however, advanced considerably since April 2009. Public debate is reminiscent of Russia in the 1990s, before the Putin freeze, albeit on a smaller scale in a country with just 3.5 million inhabitants. Politically, however, Moldova is more like Ukraine after the Orange revolution.
In Ukraine, because the "pro-European" camp was tearing itself apart, the pro-Russian party was able to return to power in early 2010. "The Ukrainian example is instructive," said Moldova's foreign minister, Iurie Leanca. "The Alliance should focus on what unites us, and not what divides us. We are too Latin in our way of making our quarrels public."
With no one party in a majority in parliament, Moldova has had no president for the last two years. This state of affairs belies the picture European leaders want to paint of Moldova as a rare post-Soviet success story. The EU has given Chisinau a €550m ($735m) grant for 2010 to 2014, and prime minister Vlad Filat received a warm welcome in Brussels. "It reminds me of Gorbachev, who was acclaimed everywhere in Europe before the end of the Soviet Union, even though the shelves were empty in the Russian shops," said Morari.
The shelves are full in Moldova but the countryside is underdeveloped. Although it recorded economic growth of 6.9% in 2010, the country is one of the poorest in Europe. One in four Moldovans works abroad. "To claim that our prime minister, Mr Filat, is a pro-European reformer is pure propaganda," said Inna Supac, a young communist deputy. "But by claiming that Moldova is a success, the EU can grant unlimited credit to the current government."
The Romanian-speaking country lies to the southwest of Ukraine, and was part of Romania from 1918 to 1940, before being brought under the Soviet yoke. It has been independent for 20 years, but is split between two languages and cultures – Russian and Moldovan – and is trying to assert its identity and its European ambitions.
For a long time, the Alliance only held 58 seats in parliament, two short of the majority required to appoint a head of state. As the 18 November elections approached, three MPs broke the communist ranks and were ready to join the coalition — but on their terms. That resulted in no candidates at all, and made early elections, mooted for spring 2012, more likely.
The outcome of the elections could be decisive for Moldova's efforts to join the EU. A recent poll found only 47% of Moldovans were in favour of joining, which is the lowest score in nearly 10 years. Discussions are under way with Brussels on a membership agreement and free trade. What Moldova really wants is for visa restrictions to be lifted by the end of 2012.
Dorin Chirtoaca, the mayor of Chisinau, leader of the Liberal party and Alliance member, regrets Moldova's missed opportunities for joining Europe. He blames the political class as a whole. "There are 10 people at most in parliament who are clear as crystal and scandal-free. Most parliamentarians only want to gain as much influence as possible and get rich."
"Once in power, the Alliance parties divided up the portfolios among themselves in typical fashion," said a political analyst, Igor Dotan. "But then they went on to divide up the public institutions, which should not be politicised, including the high court, the information and security services, the public prosecutor's office and so on."
The historian Petru Negura stressed how polarised Moldovan politics have become. "The leading parties are aligned according to geopolitical factors rather than political ones," he said, "and the rift between communists, who hark back to a Soviet past, and the liberals, who are mainly Romanian-speaking nationalists, is too great. I would like to see a civic platform that could consolidate the entire country."
Even Alliance supporters are disappointed. Ghenadie Brega, 36, was another mover in the Twitter revolution. "The government has changed but the bad aspects of the administration remained," he said. "Nobody wants the truth about 7 April to be made public. There is no understanding of transparency."
Today Ghenadie Brega works for a news website, Curaj.net. He is proud that internet citizenship is developing. "Very few people appear to have grasped the importance of the Twitter revolution. But young people have understood that they now have a new weapon: the internet."
This article originally appeared in Le Monde
Comments
3 January 2012 3:57PM
I believe it has been a little bit more checkered and would refer interested readers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova for a simple overview under Historym post WW1.
Although this was indeed chaos which cannot easily be described, it does not warranty the simplification which I quoted from the article.
One could say that one of the reasons for the country's identity and unity crises was its ever-changing position and allegiance, including linguistic identity, within the spheres of influence of the warring powers.
3 January 2012 5:20PM
I've had the pleasure of visiting Moldova several times, and found it delightful. Freedom of expression did not seem to be an issue, and the country (at least in the major cities) was richer than the statistics indicate, probably because of remittances from abroad. The people are friendly, the weather excellent, to food superb and the wine outstanding. Also, the women have a tendency towards remarkable good looks, even by eastern European standards, if that matters.
It's far from perfect, and it's been a struggle getting there, but it is undoubtedly a post-Iron curtain success story.
3 January 2012 5:31PM
The Romanian-speaking country lies to the southwest of Ukraine, and was part of Romania from 1918 to 1940, before being brought under the Soviet yoke.
Something of a simplification indeed. The diversity and wonder and fascination of all european and eastern countries is not something to be downplayed. The ignorance of so many is not aided by statements like this. If only we heard more of places little known. instead of the endless, grinding stories of politics, economy and war.
3 January 2012 6:23PM
A recent poll found only 47% of Moldovans were in favour of joining (the EU)</b I'm sure this has reduced significantly since the poll....
3 January 2012 10:30PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
4 January 2012 8:33AM
It is amazing to find a land so easternmost where people speak a Latin language. Indeed, it is a rara avis.
4 January 2012 11:04AM
It is not so amazing if you know your history. Modern day Romania (note the name), is the same region as the Roman province of Dacia. Roman legionaries who had fulfilled their military service (30 years iirc) were, as agreed, given land and a wife. That land was in Dacia and it became a sort of Roman ethnic and cultural colony. That is why Romanian is kin to Italian. So no amazement is required, history explains the presence of Latin speaking people in that region. You have to layer over it centuries of conquest and being conquered, feudal splitting up and rejoining etc of course, but the presence of a Latin language is far from mysterious.
4 January 2012 12:20PM
Support Transnistria.
4 January 2012 12:38PM
When I mentioned linguistic idenity problems it is because my impression was that the majority of Moldova's population, certainly the older to middle-aged generation, are effectively bi-lingual or fluent in Russian. A lot of educational instruction would have been conducted if not completely than mostly in Russian. This is the legacy of having been part of the Soviet Union. Up till the late 80s and the break-up of the USSR shortly afterwards Russian was the official first language. Then, suddenly, there was a full public switch.
It is my impression that the 'Romanian' language being mentioned, although essentially the same as that in Romania, is just very slightly different in orthography and usage, but not enought to make it a distinctly different spoken or written Romanian.
There are other nationalities living within Moldova, such as Ukrainians (speaking Russian, Ukrainian and also often proficient in Romanian), and there is, I believe, historically a Turkish-related minority in the South.
I am no expert - simply, when I encountered some Moldovans in my life, I took interest and read up online and listened to what they were saying about the country. If more people did that in the UK when encountering 'foreigners' closer up, there would less prejudice all round.
4 January 2012 4:32PM
Whilst on the subject of Moldova, and speaking of identities, the Russian contribution, influence and so on and so forth, I take the opportunity to remind readers of what has so far been largely unreported in the mainstream UK press - that on January 1st, 18 year old Moldovan Vadim Pisari of the village of Parata located near (or in?) the "security zone" was shot dead at a Russian military road block inside Moldovan territory, ostensibly for failing to stop at this road block. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/world/europe/shooting-raises-tensions-between-moldova-and-russia.html?_r=1" target="_blank">The New Your Times has more.
4 January 2012 4:42PM
as always -" Russian yoke" is mentioned, but the fact that Romania (and so Moldova) appeared on the map only because Russians in 19 century kicked away Turkish Muslim occupants from the region while liberating historically Chistian locals (Romanians) from the 400 years of Ottman yoke (which was a muslim yoke INDEED with mass slaughter of Christians etc. )
5 January 2012 9:33AM
You conviniently (for you) forgot to mention that he was extremely drunk, repetedly ignored orders and warning shots, and almost rolled over a peacekeeper...
5 January 2012 11:30AM
There has been speculation and claims to this effect, mostly made by the (very undiplomatic) Russian ambassador to Moldova, in an epically failed attempt at damage limitation. However, such claims and others were made even before any official inquiry even started, and were later refuted by the Moldovan police. Just like ambassador Kuzmin, you seem to have a strangely paranormal ability of knowing so many details. Reminiscent of Goebels: "if you repeat a lie for long enough, people will believe it". Even if these claims were true, it doesn't fit together well with the fact that Vadim Pisari was shot in the back. If he was shot in the back, the so called "peacekeeper's" life was clearly not in danger when he pulled the trigger. It's also not part of the peacekeepers job to enforce traffic regulations by shooting drivers.
5 January 2012 11:45AM
Both Serbia and Romania were already "de facto" independent in 1877, and Romanian forces crucially assisted Russia in the battle of Plevna, thus liberating Bulgaria. Yes formal independence did follow, but things are not quite so simple as you are presenting them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_%281877%E2%80%931878%29 for more. As for the principality of Moldova (one of 3 comprising modern Romania, the other 2 being Wallachia and Transylvania), this appeared on the map in 1359.
5 January 2012 1:56PM
arbusto; "As for the principality of Moldova (one of 3 comprising modern Romania, the other 2 being Wallachia and Transylvania), this appeared on the map in 1359."
----------
yes, appeared in 1359, but was forced to accept Turkish rule and the Sultan as its suzeren in 1415 !!!! Why is that you don't want to accept the fact that if not for Russia you would still be a villayat of Turkey and regulary genocided like Armenians or Kurds? As for Romania de-facto independent by 1877 - as if you don't know WHY it was like that - as if you try to say that Turks themselves without Russian pressure decided to give you de-facto independance...The same is like you want to make something from the incident with a Moldovan killed by a Russian soldier - you want to say that it is deliberate politics to kill Moldovans this way, or what? - incidents do happen - those soldiers prevent bloodshed there (and not only Russian by the way - there are Ukarinian military observers too there in Transdnistria !, although in much less numbers) - Russian Peacekeepers are there withinhg agreement with the Government of Moldova and in fact they help you to avoid continuation of civil war - and don't say that it is Russian occupants there- halph of those are Ukrainians ande Ukraine by the wasy have more claims for N.Bukovina as their, not Romanian historical lands - Russia has no territorial claims there at all - all Russia wants is that you guys not chop heads of each other that you effectivelly did in 1992 and the conflict was stopped only by Russian pecekeepers if you remmeber - also you conveniently forget the fact that Peacekeeping forces in Transdnestria (Moldova) consist of 4 forces - Russian, Moldovan, Transdnestrian and Ukrainian observers (and all with mutual consent and - but and likes of you try to present situation thetre as kind of "brutal" russian occupation (which is especially funny if to remember that number of Russian soldiers in Transdnestria (Moldova) is.....exactly 402 persons !!!!!- hehe! )
5 January 2012 4:00PM
@rexo: If you do some research, you will see 1415 is more like 1538. You dramatically over-simplify the history. Rightly or wrongly, the suzerainity status and special terms of the suzerainity relationship between Romanian principalities and the Ottomans (eg. no building of mosques) was negotiated without Russia, sometimes following hostilities and sometimes following changes in the power structure, eg. execution, natural death or banishment of anti-Turkish leaders, replacement by not-quite-so-anti-Turkish leaders, etc. This is not to disregard Russia's major role later (not entirely positive either), but as for the present day, the presence of Russian troops is illegal according to the Moldovan constitution and needs to be withdrawn. The proof of the pudding is that people on both sides of the security zone, as well as inside the security zone itself seem to get along fine for the last 20 years irrespective of their loyalty to Chisinau or Tiraspol. They wouldn't have voted Smirnov out and Shevchuk in during this recent local election if that was not the case, because Shevchuk wants peace/reintegration with Moldova, and the removal of the military roadblocks! A few days after Shevchuk made this declaration a man is shot in the back by a Russian soldier. Some people believe this is a provocation, as it has never happened in 20 years, although on one occasion a Russian soldier tried to shoot an American tourist for taking a photograph, but was stopped at the last moment by a Moldovan policeman. There is no tension between populations as there is in northern Georgia [?], but whatever tension there is, is deliberately maintained by separatist paramilitaries and Russia. Also Russia did not get involved in the 1992 war to stop "guys chopping heads of each other", but to openly support the separatists by opening fire on Moldovan police and volunteer forces. Former president Snegur said it best at the time: "we have to call a spade a spade - we are at war with Russia". That's why it's called "the Moldo-Russian war". It's all in the historical record. Also, apart from lots of Cossacks and separatist paramilitaries (who openly hate Romanians, have vandalised schools and generally cause trouble), there are more like 1200 Russian Fed. soldiers stationed. Also northern Bukovina is only a little bit more "historically Ukrainian" than it is "historically Polish" or Austrian for that matter. I don't see how you can say that, judging by the history seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bukovina#Northern_Bukovina . If anything, Romania has the greatest claim based on era of Stephen the Great, but at least people aren't getting shot there. I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the story!
5 January 2012 4:44PM
I know your side of the story - there are many sides in each and every story in politics, but you can't deny that those are not just Russians,but Ukrainians as well who don't want (didn't want) to reintegrate into Moldova-Romania, yet you try to blame exclusivelly Russians and you do it for one very mean reason - Ukraine is not a competitor for the west and so is "protected" from critisism by this fact - Moldovans (as well as Romanians) were part of communist world in the past, so now they need to prove to the world that it was not because they themselves were commies (although they were and in Moldova they elected commie President even after USSR had disappered and Russia had dumped its own commies !!!), so Moldovans and Romanians of your type (pro-western liberals) want to prove to the world that they (Moldovans ansd Romanians) were not commies and so were not enemies of the west, but were friends of the west occupied by brutal Russia and so were in fact victims that have rights for some benefits as such (kind of like British prisoners of war in German camps in ww2 who are entitled for aditional benefits for that suffering) - only this (victim status) will give them (Romanians and Moldovans) sympathy from the west (with some credits and cash ofcource-especially in case of Romania as poorest member of EU enjoying a lot of help from it) - so in order to force the world to believe in such version of history you use EVERY opportunity to blame Russia for everything (conveniently not blaming Ukraine for example for occupying parts of Romania and for the fact that there are the same amount of Ukrainians (as well as Russians) among Transdnestria separatists) - so your real agenda is very much clear and so your attempts to cover this your REAL intentions are pathetic...All in all your position is immoral because you cover your real intentions and throw dirt at Russia which helped you to get independance and actually to survive as a unic Chistian Orthodox culture with Latin roots.
6 January 2012 1:00AM
Romanians certainly were commies, I have no problem admitting it. The communism went particularly crazy there around the late 1970s, and by that time is was no longer through any fault of the USSR or Russia. There is nothing to gain in the way of money or anything else from any other (eg. western) parties in this argument either. This discussion is simply about human rights. Russia has by far the bigger influence anyway with countries like Germany and others, and Russia and Germany are partners again these days, just like in 1939! In reply to your other allegations, of course there are people of various ethnic origins in the separatist camp, even Romanian Moldovans I am loathe to admit. Moldovan ex-president Voronin himself is a big fan of Russia (although not a separatist), but his instincts (and that of his entourage) is semi-totalitarian, to kill and torture demonstrators, and he's not so big on human rights (particularly for Romanian nationalists, whom he considers "fascists"), which is a big part of the reason he lost power last year. I don't wish to draw any obvious parallels here, but some people will draw their own conclusions. I also acknowledge Russia's contribution to independence movements in south-east Europe during the 19th century, including Romania's, and it's many sacrifices in the wars against the Turk, however this episode is not always so fondly remembered in Romania as it is in Serbia or Bulgaria, for various reasons. Finally Romania has no designs or ambitions on it's former territories. Romania is interested in economic development and human rights, and by human rights I mean human rights at the fullest, exemplary level it provides all ethnic minorities under it's own protection, including Hungarians, Serbs, Ukrainians, Poles, Armenians, Russian Lipovans, and others. Moldova pursues very much the same policy with all minorities. Quite apart from the question of roadblocks, and shooting drivers, the world is waiting for the same standard of human rights in separatist raions of east Moldova also.
6 January 2012 1:02AM
why would anyone want to? what's so great about it?