Moldova triumphs in the EU referendum while tension rises ahead of the presidential elections
A contested referendum and presidential elections reflect deep divides in Moldova’s future, as pro-European forces prevail amidst allegations of voter manipulation.
On October 20th, Moldova held a referendum to amend its Constitution to solidify its commitment to European Union (EU) integration. This significant vote represented a pivotal moment in Moldova's political landscape, as the nation faced a defining choice between deepening ties with the EU or maintaining the status quo.
The referendum saw participation from approximately 52% of eligible voters residing within Moldova and abroad. The 52% voter turnout in the recent referendum represents a significant increase in engagement compared to previous referendums in Moldova. For instance, the 2010 referendum, which sought to amend the Constitution to allow for the direct election of the president, saw only about 29% participation. In contrast, the recent referendum's turnout reflects growing public interest in constitutional issues and concerns about Moldova's geopolitical future. Initial results from voters inside the country showed a narrow rejection of the constitutional amendment, with the majority, around 55%, choosing to vote against the proposition. Many who voted against the measure expressed concerns about losing sovereignty and unease with Moldova’s geopolitical positioning between Europe and Russia. Developments took a significant turn the day after the referendum when votes from the Moldovan diaspora were counted. As reported by Moldova’s electoral commission on Monday 21st, 50.3 per cent of voters supported pro-Western President Maia Sandu's plan for EU membership by 2030, while 49.7 per cent opposed it, with 99.2 per cent of the votes counted. The diaspora played a significant role in the electoral process, contributing to discussions and campaigning from abroad. Many Moldovans living overseas actively advocated for pro-European policies, emphasising the importance of EU integration for economic opportunities and democratic reforms. The diaspora’s involvement was crucial in raising awareness about the referendum and encouraging voter participation domestically and abroad. Thanks to their participation, the outcome shifted in favour of adopting the European process into the Moldovan Constitution.
The voting process, however, was not without controversy. Investigations surfaced of widespread voter manipulation and irregularities, primarily linked to organised criminal groups led by oligarch Ilan Shor, a controversial figure in Moldovan politics. Shor, who has been implicated in numerous corruption scandals, is believed to have promised money to voters in exchange for voting against the referendum. His network has long held influence in the northern regions of Moldova, leveraging financial incentives to sway votes.
Observers noted that several communities, particularly in regions where Shor’s influence is stronger, exhibited unusually high voter turnout rates and patterns of votes against EU integration. This raised concerns about the integrity of the referendum process and the extent to which external actors, driven by self-interest and financial incentives, were able to distort the people's will.
Despite the initial resistance from within the country, Moldova now stands at the beginning of a new chapter in its relationship with the European Union. Including EU integration into the Constitution is a symbolic but powerful step toward a future in Europe. Yet, the referendum has exposed deep societal rifts requiring careful management in the coming years. While the referendum result is seen as a victory for pro-European forces, it also highlights the divisions within Moldovan society. Some citizens remain sceptical about the benefits of EU membership, citing concerns over economic implications and national sovereignty. The government must address these concerns and engage in dialogue to foster a more united front. The influence of organised crime, coupled with political manipulation, remains a significant challenge that the Moldovan government will need to address as it navigates this complex transition.
On October 20th, Moldova also held its presidential elections. The presidential race featured three main candidates: Maia Sandu, the pro-European incumbent; Alexandr Stoianoglo, a pro-Russian candidate; and Renato Usatii, who opposed the referendum but did not declare a clear political orientation. The elections highlighted Moldova’s geopolitical crossroads, with Sandu advocating for closer ties with the European Union and her opponents catering to voters with more conservative and anti-referendum sentiments. In the first round of the presidential election, Maia Sandu secured a strong lead with 42.49% of the vote, while Alexandr Stoianoglo garnered 25.95%, and Renato Usatii came in third with 13.79%. Since no candidate achieved the required 50% majority, a runoff election is scheduled for November 3rd, where Sandu and Stoianoglo will face off. This runoff will reflect the same divide seen in the referendum, with Sandu representing Moldova’s pro-European future while Stoianoglo appeals to those favouring closer ties with Russia.
Following the initial round of elections, Maia Sandu extended an invitation to Alexandr Stoianoglo for a public debate, urging him to join so that Moldovans could assess firsthand which candidate aligns more closely with their values and aspirations. She aimed to provide voters with an open, direct comparison of key issues like Moldova’s EU integration and domestic reforms. Sandu emphasised that such a debate would help citizens make an informed choice in the upcoming election runoff.
On October 27th, at the Palace of the Republic in Chișinău, Maia Sandu and Alexandr Stoianoglo faced an intense debate ahead of the second round of Moldova's presidential elections. The event was marked by tensions and contrasting approaches, with each candidate highlighting ideological differences. Maia Sandu openly criticised Stoianoglo's connections with the PSRM party, emphasising the need for a pro-European government to support Moldova's development through partnerships with the European Union and anti-corruption reforms. On the other side, Stoianoglo presented a vision centred on Moldova's sovereignty, accusing Sandu of "submission to the West" and advocating a more balanced approach between Eastern and Western influences. He attempted to appeal to the more conservative and Eurosceptical electorate, proposing measures for economic stabilisation and combating poverty through domestic means.
During the debate, the topic of the Ukraine war highlighted the distinctly different foreign policy views of both runners. Taking a pro-European stance, Maia Sandu emphasised the importance of aligning Moldova with international sanctions against Russia and underscored the need to continue humanitarian and logistical support for Ukraine. She argued that supporting Ukraine is a moral duty and a critical measure for regional security, stressing that an unstable Ukraine poses a direct threat to Moldova. Conversely, Alexandr Stoianoglo, with a more pro-Russian viewpoint, advocated for a "neutral" approach to the conflict. He emphasised the importance of maintaining cooperative relations with Russia to ensure Moldova's economic stability. Stoianoglo suggested that excessive involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict could destabilise Moldova, and avoided firmly condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine. However, without moderators, the debate included tense moments and sharp exchanges.
Maia Sandu has also invited the electorates of Andrei Nastase, Octavian Ticu, and Renato Usatii to support her. This highlights her strategic approach to consolidating support as she heads into the second round of the election. By reaching out to the supporters of these prominent figures, Sandu aims to unify voters around a shared vision for Moldova's future, particularly in the context of European integration. Nastase, a key pro-European advocate, may find common ground with Sandu, as his supporters are likely to view her as the best candidate to continue essential reforms aimed at aligning Moldova more closely with the EU. Similarly, Ticu, known for his strong anti-corruption and pro-democracy stance, may encourage his electorate to back Sandu if he perceives her presidency as a means to advance these crucial values. Usatii presents a more complex scenario. While his previous statements haven't overtly favoured Sandu, the election dynamics could shift his stance. On October 28th, 2024, Renato Usatîi announced that he would not endorse any candidate in the upcoming second round of Moldova's presidential elections, scheduled for November 3rd. After placing third in the first round with 13.79% of the votes, Usatii emphasised that voters should choose according to their preferences. Ultimately, the likelihood of these candidates rallying their supporters behind Sandu hinges on their assessments of the political landscape and the alignment of her presidency with their goals. If they believe that backing her is in the best interest of their voters, a unified front could emerge, particularly in a closely contested race.
On the other hand, Alexandr Stoiangolo could find significant support from first-round candidates such as Irina Vlah, Ion Chicu, Victoria Fortuna, and Natalia Moraru. These candidates share a common vision that opposes further European integration, favouring closer ties with the Kremlin instead. Their alignment on these issues positions them as natural allies for Stoiangolo, particularly as they all criticise Maia Sandu’s pro-European stance. As the election progresses, their support could play a crucial role in shaping the narrative and dynamics of the race, particularly among constituents who prioritise maintaining strong relations with Russia over closer ties with Europe.