Previous articles in the series:
Quo vadis, Moldova? The EU, Language, and the Future of Moldova
Every major transition reaches a point when moving in the right direction is no longer enough. There comes a stage when success depends less on choosing the destination than on the way the journey is managed. Moldova appears to have reached exactly such a moment.
Five years ago, European integration became the country’s defining strategic choice. Since then, Moldova has managed to preserve that course despite the war next door, the energy crisis, external pressure and persistent domestic political tensions. The government has capitalized on the historic window of opportunity created by the European Union’s support, turning the European choice from a political aspiration into a tangible process.
At the same time, however, tensions have been gradually building inside the country. They have not been driven solely by the scale of the reforms or by political confrontation. They have also been fuelled by decisions whose purpose became clear only after public reactions had already taken shape; by consultations increasingly perceived as procedural rather than meaningful; and by the growing impression that criticism slows reforms down instead of helping improve them.
The recent journalistic investigation did not create this crisis of trust. It merely revealed how strained the system itself had become.
That is why today’s debate is no longer simply about restoring public confidence or communicating reforms more effectively. The model that helped Moldova maintain its European course during a period of constant mobilisation is beginning to reach its limits. The next stage requires a different approach to governing – one based not only on political leadership and administrative capacity, but also on an internal partnership with the people who will ultimately live with the consequences of these changes.
It is in this context that PAS has nominated Vasile Tofan for the position of Prime Minister. Public debate has focused almost immediately on his personality. Some viewed his nomination as an opportunity to accelerate reforms, others saw it as a signal of a more demanding phase of transformation, while still others questioned how difficult the proposed changes would prove to be. Such reactions are natural. Yet the central question today is not who will lead the next government, but what model should guide Moldova through the next stage of its European transition.
The nomination of a new Prime Minister therefore matters not only as a personnel decision. If bringing in a respected professional from outside the executive branch signals a willingness to broaden the country’s traditional model of governance, then the next challenge will be even greater: building an internal partnership around Moldova’s European transition.
When Reforms Need Partners
The first hours after Vasile Tofan’s nomination were dominated by familiar political debate. There was criticism, support and speculation about the pace and cost of future reforms. Yet amid these reactions, another, quieter message emerged.
One entrepreneur wrote that he was ready to contribute to a specific project if his experience could be of value to Moldova. Such responses reflect a growing demand for a different model of relations between the state and society – one in which individuals, organizations, and professional communities are willing to become partners in the country’s European transition while preserving their own interests and their right to voice criticis
European experience shows that the sustainability of reforms depends not only on the quality of decisions themselves, but also on the way governments work with those affected by them. This is why businesses, professional associations, local authorities, experts and civil society organisations are involved not only in discussing reforms but also in shaping and implementing them.
This does not eliminate conflicts or require permanent consensus. Interests remain different, disagreements are inevitable, and criticism remains an essential part of democratic governance. Yet the ability to work through those differences makes reforms more resilient and reduces the risk that every disagreement turns into another crisis of trust.
For Moldova, building such a culture of cooperation is particularly difficult. Every new government naturally seeks to establish its own circle of trust as quickly as possible. This makes decision-making easier and helps consolidate the governing team. At the same time, however, the space for broader partnerships begins to narrow. Instead of conducting an open search for the most capable people and organizations, the state has increasingly relied on familiar networks – former colleagues, family ties, personal connections, and members of its own political team.
Moldova faces another challenge as well. Its European transition unfolds simultaneously within two distinct communication environments. One operates primarily in Romanian, the other in Russian. They rely on different sources of information, different historical experiences and often different perceptions of the country’s future. Yet the state still tends to communicate mainly with one of these audiences, while viewing the other either as a political risk or as an audience to be persuaded only after decisions have already been made.
Perhaps the greatest challenge, however, lies elsewhere. The state is still learning to engage not only with people’s arguments but also with their fears, frustrations, fatigue and sense of exclusion from the country’s future. Yet these emotions often prove more influential than any rational explanation.
This is precisely why Vasile Tofan’s remarks about the role of a “reconciler” carry particular significance. It is not a promise of universal agreement. Rather, it reflects the need to restore the ability of different parts of Moldovan society to remain part of the same conversation, even when their interests, historical memories and interpretations of events differ.
Such an approach does not imply concessions to those who deliberately act in the interests of Russia or other external centres of influence. It does, however, require distinguishing between organised political sabotage and people whose perceptions have been shaped within a different information environment. The former must be addressed through the rule of law and state institutions. The latter require respect, meaningful participation and a language of the future in which they can also recognise themselves.
Moldova already has entrepreneurs, professional communities, sectoral organisations, local leaders and civil society organisations willing to be more than passive recipients of reforms or supporters of the government. They are ready to become internal partners in the country’s European transition by proposing alternatives, taking responsibility for concrete initiatives and contributing their own expertise to the reform process.
For now, this willingness exists mainly through individual initiatives. The next stage of Moldova’s European transition will largely depend on whether it can become a lasting practice of cooperation between the state and its internal partners.
Partnership Begins Before Decisions Are Made
If internal partnership is indeed to define the next stage of the European transition, then the logic of governance must change as well.
The next stage of European integration is no longer defined only by legislation or institutional reform. Increasingly, it is about institutional maturity. One of the clearest signs of that maturity is the ability of the state to see internal partnership not as a constraint on its authority or a concession to public pressure, but as a resource for better governance.
This does not mean that the state ceases to be the leader of change. On the contrary, the state remains responsible for setting the direction, making decisions and being accountable for them. What changes is the recognition that knowledge, expertise and workable solutions do not exist exclusively within public institutions. Openness to professional expertise, independent voices and civic participation becomes a hallmark of mature democratic institutions.
This is where the role of strategic communication also changes.
For many years, strategic communication has been understood primarily as a tool for explaining decisions after they have already been made. The next stage requires something different. Strategic communication should help the state build an internal partnership around Moldova’s European transition.
That means creating space for cooperation before disagreements evolve into political confrontation. It means helping public institutions identify, at an early stage, the people, organisations and professional communities willing to contribute their knowledge and experience. It also means enabling different professional, territorial and linguistic communities to discuss the country’s future in a language they recognise as their own, while preserving their identity and their right to dissent.
Perhaps its most important task, however, is something else. Strategic communication should not aim to reduce criticism. Its purpose is to ensure that criticism becomes part of the search for better solutions rather than a reason to end the conversation. The objective is not to eliminate disagreement, but to prevent disagreement from turning into a lasting divide between the state and society.
This is why the discussion is no longer simply about a new communication model. It is about a new culture of governing the European transition, in which the state retains leadership while increasingly relying on internal partnership as one of the key resources for sustainable change.
This may well become the defining test of Moldova’s next stage of European integration.
Because European integration is not only about adopting European legislation or building stronger institutions. It is also about embracing a European culture of relations between the state and society. Perhaps this will turn out to be the most difficult transition and ultimately the most important.
Alexandr Bejenari,
Founder of PARC Communications, Strategic Communications Expert
