ElectionsParliamentary2005Election News

Election News from February 10, 2005

|print version|

Coalition 2005 to PCRM

Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections Coalition-2005 considers as groundless the accusations brought to it by the President of the RM, Vladimir Voronin on February 9, during a press conference, and by the Party of Communists in its open letter (no. 02/01–27 of 9.02.05).

President Voronin and PCRM cited false data when accusing the Coalition of partisanship. None of the Coalition leaders is politically affiliated. All those who were members of political party suspended their activity in that party.

The fact that the majority of frauds cited in the monitoring reports produced by the Coalition were committed by PCRM reflects the reality that is valid countrywide. Coalition-2005 is guided in its monitoring activity by the generally accepted international standards. Coalition took notice of the facts mentioned in the PCRM address of February 3, 2005 would examine them, and if true those facts would be included in the final report on monitoring the electoral process to be produced by the Coalition.

Coalition 2005 considers as groundless the accusations made that it supports illegal Tiraspol regime. We are baffled by those insinuations, at the time when the ruling party itself took over the message and the terms for resolving Transdnistrian conflict developed and proposed by the civil society.

PCRM’s plans “to demand from relevant bodies” to confiscate the funds received by Coalition 2005 is a serious threat and might be interpreted as an attempt to suppress Coalition activities, per se, a clear violation by the authorities of free and fair elections principles. The latter undermines the enforcement of the RM-EU Action Plan that sets free and fair elections as a top goal together with ensuring human rights, democracy, and rule of law.

PCRM surprised

PCRM stated it “was surprised by the reactions of the US Embassy to its open letter addressed to the Coalition-2005. US Embassy refuted some alleged accusations, albeit our letter did not and could not contain such accusations. Our claims to Coalition-2005 resume to the following:

  1. We stated that Coalition is not up to the status of unbiased observer of the electoral process, its entire activity is intended to glorify one single electoral contestant and to consolidate its positions. PCRM brought some information to the attention of the Coalition-2005 about abuses and violations committed by certain electoral contestants, however there was no follow-up, the said facts were not included in the reports.
  2. We drew the attention of the public opinion to the fact that many of the coalition leaders are active in the political parties running in elections.
  3. We believe Coalition-2005’s actions are other than the noble goals for which it had been established. We believe that by adopting MDB political position and by using its elements and electoral symbols in the materials produced, certain leaders of the Coalition-2005 betrayed the trust of the donors who granted funds for the unbiased monitoring of the parliamentary elections in Moldova.

PCRM offers the donors of Coalition-2005 the possibility to have an objective picture of the situation, but does not accuse them. Informing the society is not an accusation, but rather a method to protest, to which PCRM resorted.

Our protest refers exclusively to the disinformation campaign carried out by the Coalition-2005. Being an affiliated structure of the MDB, Coalition illustrates how the impartial monitoring of the electoral process may be discredited, or the collaboration with prestigious international organisations. We assume that the relevant international organisations would not be indifferent to the fact that the recipients of funds for the purpose of furthering democratic institutions and western values are using the funds to destabilise the political situation in Moldova in close cooperation with Tiraspol secessionist regime”.

EU statement

Declaration by the presidency on behalf of the European Union concerning the parliamentary elections in Moldova

The European Union attaches considerable importance to its relations with the Republic of Moldova, as borne out by the action plan recently agreed on under the European neighbourhood policy. The plan is to be submitted to the EU-Moldova Cooperation Council, meeting on 22 February 2005, for approval.

The level aspired to in relations between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova will depend on Moldova’s commitment to shared values. It is thus only natural that the European Union should keep a close watch on the electoral process under way in Moldova. The European Union appeals to the Moldovan authorities for the parliamentary elections in March 2005 to be held openly and fairly, with unbiased, pluralist media coverage of the campaign and with even-handedness shown by the state administration towards all candidates and their supporters. The European Union calls on the Moldovan administration to ensure that votes cast by expatriates are duly and impartially processed. The election campaign and the elections themselves should be conducted in compliance with democratic standards and in accordance with Council of Europe and OSCE criteria. The EU here also calls on the Moldovan government to heed the concerns pointed to by the OSCE needs assessment mission and to implement the joint recommendations issued by the OSCE and the Venice Commission in June 2004.

The European Union welcomes the Moldovan authorities’ invitation for international observers to be present at the parliamentary elections. The Member States and the Commission stand ready to make a suitable contribution. The EU hopes that the Moldovan authorities will also give a favourable response to the wish of Moldovan civil society to assist in observing the elections.

MDB notification

Moldova Democrata Bloc (MDB) issued a statement on the students’ protests:

  1. MDB supports the students who fight against them being manipulated by the authorities and discriminated against other categories of voters. Authorities have not complied with their obligation to guarantee all the citizens of RM equal conditions for exercising their right to vote.
  2. MDB salutes the efforts by the students, as well as of the citizens working abroad, to oblige authorities to allow them to vote at the place of temporary residence; therefore MDB provides them, for now, legal consultations.
  3. We view as an erroneous the information that Oleg Cernei, Honorary Chair of the Federation of Students’ Organisations runs on the MDB list of candidates. We insist that information to be rectified. Youth of Moldova Democrata together with young representatives of other parties took part in the peaceful rally of the students claiming their rights.

SDPM candidate aggressed

Social-Democratic Party of Moldova (SDPM) press service reported that on February 9, 2005 “Calarasi police detained Elena Corjan, candidate on the SDPM list. While she was electioneering in the central square of Calarasi, two armed policemen demanded her to follow them at the City Police Commissariat. She was kept there for more than one hour without any explanations, then she was taken to Rayon Police Commissariat. Elena was threatened «to be arrested if found again electioneering in favour of SDPM». After one hour of humiliation she was released.”

MI refutes

Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) refuted allegations made during a press conference by a member of the National Union of Independence War Veterans. The latter claim they “have precise data disclosed by our friends in the Ministry, about police involvement in denigration of electoral contestants.” According to them, besides police, additional persons were recruited to intimidate Communist party’s political foes. (from Ziarul de Garda)

MIA press secretary, Andrei Slutu, stated that the said allegations “are groundless and are nothing but political speculations… Police is a non-political structure, however if contestants report on police interference in electoral campaign, they should notify CEC on that.” “There are also judiciary bodies that may rule on such cases or follow-up on them” (from BASA).