The open letter notes that numerous historical and architectural monuments in Moldova are in poor condition, and that issues surrounding their preservation continue to be hampered by legislative and practical challenges.
The academician emphasizes that attitudes toward historical heritage should not be determined solely by political or ideological assessments of the period in which a given site was created. In his view, buildings, monuments, and memorial sites from different eras are part of the country’s history and must be preserved, first and foremost, as sources of historical memory.
“A society that destroys its own tangible monuments risks losing the ability to understand the historical processes that shaped it. Cultural and architectural heritage, regardless of the period in which it was created, is a source of knowledge, reflection, and dialogue between generations. Therefore, its preservation must transcend ideological disputes and short-term interests, becoming a priority of public policy. Only in this way will the Republic of Moldova be able to preserve historical continuity and pass on to future generations an authentic memory—one that is not fragmented or altered by changing political circumstances,” Valeriu Pasat notes in his letter.
The letter specifically notes that, following the declaration of independence, Moldova established a legislative framework for the protection of monuments. In particular, the author refers to the Law on the Protection of Monuments and the State Register of Monuments of the Republic of Moldova. Following legislative changes in 2021, the definitions related to interference with the condition of monuments, their destruction, degradation, and the protection of the historical and architectural environment were clarified.
However, according to the author of the petition, the existence of a modern regulatory framework does not in itself solve the problem.
A systematic conservation policy is needed
Valeriu Pasat proposes treating the protection of cultural heritage as a distinct area of public policy, independent of current political and ideological disputes.
This involves not only the preservation of individual buildings or monuments, but also their restoration, proper maintenance, the protection of buffer zones, and the creation of an appropriate urban environment. The letter cites examples of sites in Chisinau whose condition, according to the author, illustrates the gap between their historical significance and their actual state of preservation.
One proposed approach is to evaluate historical heritage based on documented facts and professional research, separating a site’s historical and cultural value from the political assessments of the era in which it was created.
The author also draws attention to the need for a more careful approach to memorial sites and historical figures. In his view, the state’s policy on memory should be based on research into the historical context and should not be reduced to the mechanical exclusion of inconvenient chapters of the past.
Thus, the main thesis of the appeal is the need to move from the mere existence of preservation legislation to its consistent application—with clear mechanisms for accountability, restoration, funding, and public oversight.
For Moldova, this is significant not only in terms of preserving individual monuments. Historical heritage is simultaneously a cultural resource, part of the urban environment, and a tool for transmitting knowledge about the past to future generations.
Follow our updates
