Even the government’s secretary general, Alexei Buzu, noted that the proposed reform is not the most popular, but “we cannot leave its implementation to future generations.”
The main areas of criticism: the reform is planned in such a way as to bring PAS representatives to power in the united administrative-territorial units, while the methods of its implementation contradict the Moldovan Constitution and European legislation.
How the reform will bring PASrepresentatives to power
Moldova’s administrative-territorial reform is being organized by the government around the future candidates of Maya Sandu’s party in local elections, according to the Liberal Democrat leader Vlad Filat.
This is how he explains the delay in publishing the government’s version of the reform, as all PAS candidates at the local level have not been identified yet:
“The administrative-territorial reform should lead in the end to what? An autonomous administration that is self-sufficient from all points of view and that will be able to provide quality services to the population locally. Their [Sandu’s party] approach is completely different. How to redraw the mayoralties and districts administratively and territorially in such a way that they manage to get the best electoral result.”
In the present, he emphasized, the reform is built not around objective socio-economic indicators, but around future candidates, adjusting the situation on the ground to them, conducting voluntary mergers of villages and communes under them, eliminating competitors with promises that they will become deputy mayors. And this is “an absolutely unfair approach and a failure from the start”.
Mayors insist on referendums
The Congress of Local Authorities (CALM) says that the reform in its current form, in whole or in part, is not supported even by some mayors who are members of the ruling party.
CALM executive director Viorel Furdui said that “merging or merging mayoralties without direct and effective consultation with all residents is an unconstitutional, abusive, immoral and anti-European act.”
Explaining CALM’s position on the local administration reform project, Furduy explained that any merger attempt imposed against the will of local communities violates the law, discredits administrative-territorial reform and risks becoming a form of usurpation of state power.
“CALM has already presented a clear vision of most aspects of this reform. In brief, it is very much in line with the general consensus on the need for reform and its main directions: decentralization, administrative-territorial reform, especially at the district level, and regionalization, strengthening the process of voluntary association (voluntary, not forced), measures to strengthen financial autonomy, continuation of local and regional development projects, etc.,” said Furduy.
At the same time, regarding the so-called “voluntary” and especially normative (compulsory) association, after a deep legal analysis, the main conclusion emerges: there are clear signs of unconstitutionality and abuse of people and local communities if they are not genuinely and effectively consulted by the only credible means – referendum.
No other form of transparency or consultation of groups of community residents (publications, surveys, meetings) that does not guarantee the right of every resident of the local community concerned to express themselves can in any way be considered genuine and effective consultation. On the contrary, it is a deception and an imitation of consultation. Because the very future of the administrative-territorial unit is at stake. We are talking about the liquidation of the representative local administration (mayor and local council) and its transformation from a subject of law into a mere settlement/local government, deprived of decision-making rights and legal-administrative identity, insists Furduy.
What the lawyers say
The Congress of Local Authorities has commissioned a legal analysis of the reform concept’s compliance with the founding documents. It says that the reform concept and methods are contradictory:
– Article 75 of the Constitution: the most important issues of society and the state are subject to referendum;
– Article 109 of the Constitution: consultation with citizens is the basic principle of local self-government;
– Article 2 of the Constitution: sovereignty belongs to the people, exercised directly or through representative bodies;
– European Charter of Local Self-Government (Article 5): any change in local territorial boundaries requires consultation with the communities concerned, possibly by referendum;
– Electoral Code (Article 218, paragraph 2): the amalgamation of several localities may be subject to a local consultative referendum;
– Law No. 225/2023 on voluntary amalgamation: the principle of transparency requires consultation with the inhabitants of all the administrative units concerned.
Negative consequences that the reform in its current form may lead to ( CALMarguments ):
– Destabilization of society – the elimination of more than half of local authorities/mayors will cause social tensions, protests and loss of trust in public institutions.
– Fragmentation of local communities – the disappearance of mayors will weaken social cohesion and increase the sense of marginalization among small communities.
– Risk of political deadlock – a radical reform imposed without consensus will serve as a basis for polarization of the political scene, creating conflicts between the center and the periphery.
– Blocking the European integration process – a forced reform contrary to democratic standards could be perceived as a serious deviation from international commitments and would slow down or even block the European path.
– Government reorientation – instead of focusing on important economic, judicial and security reforms, the government will be forced to deal with unforeseen administrative crises caused by a radical reform.
Secret interests may lurk behind the merger process
The local government reorganization process promoted by the authorities under the slogan of “merger” raises concerns about its impact on rural settlements, the lack of clear explanations on how it will be implemented and the long-term consequences for the population, Dumitru Roibu, chairman of the political party Alliance of Moldovans, told a Moldovan TV station.
He said the consequences of the reorganization could be directly felt by villagers, including by limiting access to public services and reducing property values.
“The risks we foresee are the disappearance of many settlements, the depreciation of houses. People who worked and built houses risk being left behind in villages where there will no longer be a town hall, there will no longer be a school, there will no longer be a kindergarten. This turns a settlement into a disappearing one and inevitably leads to depopulation,” says Dumitru Roibu.
The public administration reform strategy adopted by the government in 2023 clearly states that some culture houses should be closed or transformed into other institutions, and other social facilities in the locality may disappear. On the other hand, the authorities state that they will close only town halls, which creates ambiguities.
“In reality, we will get an overload of work in some town halls, where one official will have to work for four, and the quality of services will suffer. There is also a hidden interest that I urge citizens to think about – the prospect of selling land to foreigners. I do not see any other interests in these actions,” says Dumitru Roibu.
The Roibu-led party has formulated a number of recommendations, including:
– Strictly limiting possible associations to settlements with less than 1,500 inhabitants;
– lowering the minimum threshold for amalgamated municipalities to 1,500 residents in accordance with current legislation;
– prohibiting financial incentives for mergers;
– maintaining uniformity of competencies for local authorities of the same level;
– refusal to transfer responsibility for education, health care and social assistance to higher levels;
– exclusive financing of possible reforms from the state budget, without involving external partners.
