Parliamentary Elections in Moldova | 2014 | 2010 | July 29, 2009 | April 5, 2009 | 2005 | 2001 | 1998 | 1994
ADEPT | Gagauzia 2016 | Presidential 2016 | Elections 2015 | Bashkan 2015 | Gagauzia 2012 | Political Parties
Reasons for failure of the referendum
|
|
|
||
Regardless of how political parties will present the main reasons for failure of the referendum, a number of real reasons may be identified to explain this failure. The most important of these are the following:
- pro-referendum campaign conducted by EIA was anaemic, perhaps considering from the very beginning that it’s final — positive — result is predetermined. Anaemia of EIA components was determined by the fact that over the years the opinion polls have consistently confirmed that overwhelming majority of citizens favours the direct election of the head of state. And indeed, approximately 88% of those citizens who participated in the referendum voted in favour of the submitted option;
- the behaviour of EIA leaders has caused confusion among voters by the fact that it actually replaced the call to participate in changing the way of electing the president by an early and inappropriate call to identify the possible winner of direct presidential election;
- boycott of the referendum by PCRM was quite effective. PCRM has persuaded local councils from about 20% of localities throughout the country to urge people to boycott the referendum, resorting to all sorts of tricks, especially exploiting the phobias existent in the society regarding the hidden intentions of liberal opponents to undermine the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Moldova. In this sense, the referendum on amending the way of electing the president was presented as a prelude and a test which, if successful, would be later used to achieve some goals of the hidden agenda of liberal entities;
- overlapping the PCRM boycott over the negative perception shared by absolute majority of citizens (according to polls, more than 60%) of the actions and statements made by the interim President, Mihai Ghimpu, regarding: May 9, condemnation of crimes of the communist regime, the declaration of “historical truth”, relations with Russia and its military presence in the districts on the left side of Nistru;
- lack of some intrigue about the referendum, because it was known that the overwhelming majority of citizens support the idea of direct presidential election. Many citizens didn’t show up to the referendum because they were convinced of a positive result even without their participation, and not just because they have followed the boycott call by PCRM;
- “anti-mafia” campaign has folded over the pro-referendum campaign, producing a deep disgust to many voters. It should be noted that “anti-mafia” campaign was launched intentionally on July 29, exactly over a year after early parliamentary elections that led to the EIA governance. The main message of “anti-mafia” campaign had a devastating persuasion potential: during the PCRM governance (2001–2009) mafia was under the control of power, and after the EIA took over the power mafia managed to take control over political power when leaders of some EIA components, which are under the maintenance of mafia, appointed the leaders of the main law enforcement bodies, etc.