Doina Herman
Last Thursday, the parliament adopted a resolution on the spheres of activity of the standing commissions. And, as it seemed, nothing seemed to portend trouble. A new commission – on European integration – appeared, and it became necessary to update the internal regulations of work. Formally, it was an ordinary technical decision that did not cause any disputes.
However, the discussion quickly went beyond the scope of the project after the statement of PAS deputy speaker Doina Herman, which had no direct relation to the decree under consideration. The MP announced the preparation of the Code on the Organization and Functioning of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, drafted on the recommendation of the European Commission.
Doina German said that the current regulation is outdated and outmoded, as it has not been updated since 1996. “We are living in 2025, colleagues,” she stated. – And that is why for the transcript and especially for colleagues from the consolidated opposition led by their leader, Mr. Igor Dodon, who, as everyone understands, have a certain path chosen – the Russian model, where chaos, disorganization and obstruction reign…”. At that moment, it was no longer of fundamental importance how exactly this thought was to end – the political conflict had been launched. Moreover, what was said sounded like a direct invitation to it.
But the “plan” was revealed and the “authors were exposed”. PSRM leader Igor Dodon said that what was happening was a conscious attempt to provoke conflicts within the opposition: “We had to come to this conversation anyway – now, before the New Year or after. After all, what irritates them most of all is the fact that we do not quarrel or ‘fight’ among ourselves. What they need is for us to fight among ourselves, while they continue to push their agenda.
MP Alexander Vershinin from the faction of the Democratia Acasa Movement did not take a pass from PAS either. He said he was ready for any format of political cooperation with other opposition factions, just to oppose the actions of the government. “Yes, we are in opposition, and we will sign together with Mr. Dodon, and with Mr. Gaik Vartanyan, and with Renato Usatii – absolutely with anyone, just to put an end to the lawlessness and mess you have brought to the country.”
Vlad Batryncha, Vice-Speaker of the Parliament, drew attention to the substitution of the essence of the discussion: “I don’t understand how from a purely technical project you again came to condemn the opposition. Here, all 101 MPs are subjects of legislative initiative – this is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. If you want democracy, the parliament should be a platform for debate. But only within this convocation we submitted about 20 requests for parliamentary hearings, and none of them was supported by you, the parliamentary majority”.
Our Party leader Renato Usatii suggested that Doina Herman admit that it was a joke and all of this would not be happening now, “Ms. Herman, you could have stopped all of this by simply saying you were joking. Or were you ashamed to admit you were joking? How about I speak for you? I’ve seen the polls. I’ve seen that PAS has 35%. That’s the problem: we need to raise (the rating) a little bit.”
According to former Prime Minister Ion Kiku (Alternative Bloc), with this conflict, the government tried to shift public attention away from some “unpopular” decisions: “This was the intention – to make people forget what was actually discussed today, for example, the compromise of the justice reform. So that the attention would not be focused on that, and everyone would watch Dodon, Usatii, Kiku and the rest of them fight again. Because if you didn’t say that, people would remember that today you voted for a law that again raises the salary of the head of one of the bodies(National Agency for Complaints – LP note)”.
Why did the Deputy Speaker need to launch this conversation? To check the degree of tension? In that case, the answer was received: the opposition did not quarrel, but reacted synchronously. This time.
Meanwhile, this episode fits into the broader context of the changes that the parliamentary majority is preparing – amendments to the Rules of Parliament, which provide for the introduction of the so-called “Voting Hour” and a strict limitation of debate time. According to the document, only one representative of a faction will be able to speak on each bill, and voting on all issues will be placed in a fixed time block.
The opposition and a number of current and former MPs have already called these initiatives an instrument of political control rather than efficiency. Critics point out that the new scheme is convenient primarily for PAS: it allows to collect a quorum only at the time of voting and reduces the role of plenary sessions as a platform for discussion.
“Yes, democracy presupposes the existence of clear rules and procedures,” former Prime Minister Alexander Muravsky commented on Doina German’s words. – Rules and procedures binding on everyone. Rules and procedures, not stupid bans and brazen demonstrative violation of these procedures by the authorities, which we see every day in Moldova. Democracy presupposes broad rights for the opposition, which it realizes, first of all, through the Parliament, as the main institution of democracy”.
The leaders of all opposition factions signed a Joint Statement “on the violation of democratic principles and the attempt to politically subjugate the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova.” “The proposed changes contradict the Constitution, European standards and principles of good governance. Parliament should remain a space of free debate, political pluralism and democratic representation,” the document reads.
Observers believe that the preservation of the key “line of defense” of parliamentarism, the last “redoubt” of the opposition – the right to speak, discuss and control the actions of the authorities – depends on how coordinated all opposition factions will continue to act. Otherwise, the very meaning of parliamentarism, which is inherent in its name: parler – “to speak”, is jeopardized. If a parliament does not speak, it is not a parliament.
Igor Klipiy, former Deputy Secretary General of Parliament, said in a commentary for Logos Press that the discussion of the Rules of Procedure cannot be reduced to individual initiatives – it should be a systematic assessment of how the parliament actually functions and why the existing rules are applied selectively.
“The problem with the Rules of Procedure is its voluntaristic interpretation and application depending on immediate interests. In my opinion, it would be advisable to review the activities of consultants in commissions and transfer responsibility for legislative drafting solely to MPs and their corps of assistants, either personal or factional. The activity of commission consultants should be reduced to technical work, as well as legal and procedural expertise, without participation in the development of laws or their content,” believes Igor Klipiy.
In addition, he points out an aspect of the functioning of the Parliament that needs to be finally defined and regulated. And this should have been done even before the introduction of the electronic system of initiation, development, adoption and, ultimately, promulgation of laws.
“It is a question of the fact that the legislative body often acts on the basis of certain established “customs” that contradict the Rules, in particular within the framework of the activities of the plenary sessions of Parliament. In this sense, it is necessary either to integrate these “customs” into the law or to prohibit any deviation from the Rules. Of course, provided that such “prohibitions” are enforced,” said Igor Klipiy.
