Morning in Moldova

What two things do the following countries have in common?Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, JapanFirstly, they are some of the world's leading liberal democracies.  Economically strong, they offer their citizens opportunities which people from many other countries can only dream of.Secondly, they are all constitutional monarchies.  Their head of state is a hereditary royal who for the most part has a symbolic role (real power resting with the parliament and the government), but who also has just enough in the way of 'reserve powers' to keep the politicians honest.The countries in the list above fall into two broad classes:  There are the 'kingdoms' - the Scandinavian countries, the UK and Japan - where the monarch is actually based in the country concerned.  The other class is the 'dominions' - Canada, Australia & New Zealand - whose head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) is not resident and who exercises her function through a Governor General.At this point I need to confess to being a (constitutional) monarchist.  Not because I believe that any person has a divine right to rule, simply because one of their distant ancestors had a bigger club than the other men in the village.  Not because I'm a fan of stuffiness and formality.  Not because I want to live in a fairytale world of princes, princesses, dragons and castles.No.  I'm a constitutional monarchist for one very simple reason.  It works.Constitutional monarchy delivers better results for citizens by separating the head of state from the political process.  Because the monarch doesn't have to seek re-election every four years, they are able to take a much longer-term view of events in the nation, and one which is more independent of the events of the day.  The reserve powers that they possess are insufficient to allow them to exercise power in their own name, but scary enough to keep elected politicians from usurping power.So what are these reserve powers I keep mentioning?  Some of them are 'hard powers' such as the right to dissolve parliament in certain circumstances.  For example, in 1974, Australia's Governor General dissolved parliament when it became evident that it was incapable of passing a budget.  Just as important are the Monarch's soft powers, for example the bully-pulpit through which a modicum of moral leadership can be exercised.  An example of this would be the speeches of encouragement of King George V to his people during World War II.Where am I going with this?  Look at Moldova's history as an independent state.  There have been many failed attempts to elect a president.  Of the three successful attempts, at least two resulted in the election of men more concerned with amassing fortunes than with the well-being of citizens.  The country has spent the last two years in continual constitutional limbo.  In short, the Moldovan Republic is dysfunctional.Maybe it's time to give constitutional monarchy a shot?  Here's how I would do it:Re-write the section of the constitution dealing with the Presidency such that it now deals with the Monarchy.  The monarchy would be passed from one generation to another by non-sexist primogeniture.Limit the 'hard' reserve powers of the monarchy to dissolution of parliament in certain extreme cases (e.g. impossibility to form a government, impossibility to pass a budget, gross breaches of the constitution)Modify the process of forming a government such that the monarch doesn't have the power to sack a government approved by parliament (this is a serious problem with the current constitution)Write a provision into the constitution requiring a referendum every twenty years in which the population will be asked whether they want to retain the monarchy.  This keep the monarchy ultimately accountable to the people (without overly politicising it).Keep them humble by offering relatively modest accommodation (e.g. the current presidential quarters) and by limiting pomp and ceremony to levels appropriate for a small and relatively poor country.  The "bicycling" monarchies of northern Europe should be the model in this regard.The final question is, of course, where to find a monarch?  There seem to be three options:Dig back into the distant past of the principality of Moldova and try to find a legitimate heir to the 'domnitori' of old.  While fraught with dangers, this option is the most likely to find favour with the rusophone left.Do what Romania did in the 19th century and invite a foreigner to take the throne.  The best option in this case would be a member of one of the existing constitutional monarchies, as they would have a good understanding of how the institution functions.  There could be collateral security and trade benefits if Moldova was linked by blood to, say, the British monarchy.The most obvious solution, however, is to (re)instate Romania's royal family.  They do, after all, have a legitimate claim to be the head of state on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, having been illegally dispossessed by Stalin's 1940 occupation of Basarabia.The Rusophone left would obviously have issues with the final option, however in my mind they could be talked around.  First of all, the establishment of a monarchy would give a powerful boost to the development of a true, modern Moldovan identity, separate from the historic Romanian & Soviet identities.  Secondly, the reinstatement of the Romanian monarchy within constitutional arrangements inherited from the Soviet Union could be a powerful symbol of the two sides of Moldovan society coming back together.  Thirdly, were the monarch to be proactive in engaging the rusophone community (e.g. by learning their language), this could also go a long way towards diffusing opposition.  (The image comes to mind of Nelson Mandela bridging the gap between black and white in South Africa simply by wearing a Springbok rugby jersey...)So.  Long live the (humble, constitutional, conciliatory, democratic, bicycling, almost-but-not-quite powerless) king!

As we all know, the rich world has a debt problem. It's been living beyond its means for some time now, a situation exposed in so many ways by the 2008 financial crisis. Governmment finances in particular are in disarray, as they have been forced to bail out their banks, are receiving less in tax and paying more in benefits. Without drastic action, government blance sheets can only deteriorate further as demographic change (primarily aging populations).The obvious solution is to- cut Government spending, as some countries have done. Economists and capital markets, however, fret that spending cuts are contractionary and will increase debt-to-GDP ratios by shrinking economies. In general, they are looking for short-term measures to boost growth, arguing that a larger economy is better able to support its debt.Prima facie, the economists are right. This view encompasses some dangerous thinking, however.Firstly, it rests on the idea that economies can continue to grow indefinitely, and that there is no limit to the size of a country's GDP. That's a fallacy. The Earth has limited resources (some of which are in the process of being exhausted) and that necessarily puts a cap on average living standards. It is ultimately a zero sum game (at least in respect of primary and secondary output).Secondly, countries are running into productivity limits. If your enterprises already employ the best and most efficient practices, then there is no way you can make your labour and capital inputs more productive. This is the situation many western economies find themselves in and explains why developing economies tend to grow faster than developed ones.Thirdly, the targeting of GDP growth by governments is undemocratic. The 'rewards of growth may go to only a small section of the population. The current recovery, for example, is mainly focused on growth in corporate profits; unemployment levels grew rapidly during the recession, and now seem stuck at permanently higher levels. The GDP measure is not directly concerned with the aspirations of the people to have a well-paid & interesting job, access to quality education & healthcare etc. These aspirations are what governments should be focussing on and measuring themselves against.Fourthly, the targeting of growth can lead to some poor policy decisions. Possibly the prime example of this was the debt-fuelled phoney growth of the recent past. So long as governments can borrow and central banks can print money, the generation of phoney, short-term growth remains an option, even if it exacerbates balance sheet weakness or undermines the currency.The answer I think, is for Governments to measure themselves against targets that really matter to voters. The UN's human development index (HDI), though far from perfect, may be the best current example of a single- figure measure that could be adopted. As well as pure economic elements, it includes items such as the literacy rate, numbers of doctors per capita, respect for human rights etc.It may be best to consider GDP not so much as a measure of an economy's success, but rather (in part at least) as a measure of a country's annual call on the earth's resources. The goal of good government would then be the maximisation of its HDI subject to the constraint of maintaining or even reducing GDP.It can be done, but it will require policy prescriptions very different from those designed to produce short-term reflation. I have some idea what those policy prescriptions should look like, but I think I'll address those in another post. It suffices to say that moving away from GDP targeting will welp the West move away from an economic model based on importing and consuming and towards one based on things of more fundamental importance. This, in turn, will allow the mountains of debt, both public and private, to begin to be reduced.

Moldova's constitution demands equal treatment for all citizens.  Moldovan law, however, segregates citizens into two differnt groups, and gives one group an additional right compared to the other group.Those who became citizens by birth in Moldova, or by the fact of their residence in the country at independence, have the right to hold the citizenships of other countries as well as Moldova.On the other hand, those who become Moldovan citizens by naturalisation are required to give up all other citizenships.This differential treatment of citizens is unfair and unconstitutional.  Parliament should act to make the rules on multiple citizenship the same for all.

It's the gateway to Chisinau, the first district you enter as you approach the city from the airport, from Tiraspol.  It's the largest and most populous sector of Chisinau, housing over 26% of the city's residents.  In Soviet times it was the place to be, a modern, go-ahead sort of place near to the fresh air and greenery of the Botanical Gardens after which it takes its name.In 2011 however, the sector of Botanica has another claim to notoriety - the highest proportion of Communist voters in Chisinau and one of the highest nationwide.  Consider the following results:Mayoral Vote, First Round, 5th June 2011Chisinau (Total):  Dodon 166,232 (48.07%), Chirtoaca 160,827 (46.51%)Sector Botanica:  Dodon  43,768 (58.53%), Chirtoaca 27,856 (37.25%)At first glance, it seems odd that residents on the leading sector of the most well-informed city in Moldova should continue voting for a party which has been so thoroughly discredited, which has stolen massively from the state's coffer's, abused its citizens human rights and which no thinking person should support.There are a couple of reasons, however, why the good folk of Botanica continue to turn out for the chardonnay socialists of the PCRM.  The first is history: Botanica was mostly built up during Soviet rule to house incoming migrants from Russia and other Soviet republics.  The population is therefore largely Rusophone; it's very noticeable how little Romanian you hear spoken on the street and in the shops in this part of Chisinau.  Rusophones obviously see the Rusophilic Dodon as representing their interests better than the almost-unionist Chirtoaca.The second reason is that Botanica is a district somewhat down on its luck.  Shops on the main street, Bd. Dacia, find it hard to turn a profit and hence turnover of retail tenants is high and space is frequently empty.  The fountains that once watered a gracious avenue have been silent for decades.  The population is aging rapidly and dependent on the miserly pensions they receive from the state.  And, stupidly, they in general prefer the propaganda of NIT to the information furnished by other TV channels.So what is to be done?  We need a better result out of Botanica in the second round on June 19th so that Chirtoaca can win a resounding victory and Moldova's pro-European course preserved.  Of course, there's no magic bullet, but here's a few ideas:Mount a "Switch off NIT" campaign.  One very significant matter that has been overlooked due to the contest in Chisinau is the fact that the communist vote outside of the cities is slowly collapsing (from around 40% at the elections in 2007 to around 30% in 2011).  One of the major reasons for this is that Moldova 1 (the countryside's main source of information) is no longer a propaganda channel for the communists.  Get people to switch off NIT, even for a week, and you'll see a noticeable improvement.Make the case that a pro-European course will be good even for Russian-speakers.  Many of these folk have serious misconceptions about NATO, the EU and Romania, having never had the opportunity to travel to the west.  These misconceptions need to be corrected, and quickly.  Russian speakers need to understand that EU entry will bring new opportunities, rising living standards and protection of legitimate minority rights.Offer a plan for the rejuvenation of Botanica.  Bring shops, restaurants and other businesses back to the district.  Fix the fountains and switch them on at least a few days a year.  Fill the worst potholes in the side roads.  Mount some free concerts for senior citizens, sponsored by the city or the AIE parties directly.Deliver of copy of the Cojocaru Commission's report on the postwar Soviet Occupation to each household.  People need to know the truth about the forebears of today's communists and the horrors they committed.  This could make them think twice about voting Dodon.The AIE parties need to show absolute unity and refrain from criticising each other until the election.  This may bring to the polls a group of AIE supporters who didn't vote in round one as a protest against the in-fighting within the ruling coalition. 

Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states thatEveryone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.During the cold war this article was breached regularly by Warsaw Pact countries, the symbol of which was the Berlin Wall, constructed to stop the people of East Germany from escaping to freedom.  Even in our day, some countries deny their residents the right to leave.  You're probably thinking of the likes of North Korea, Cuba etc.  Unfortunately Moldova is also in the list of those who are serial breachers of the right to leave.I'm not talking about citizens, who have the right to come and go as they please.  I'm talking about Moldova's permanent residents - citizens of other countries who have made their home in Moldova.  They're not a big group and hence they don't have much of a voice, which is why I am choosing to raise this issue on their behalf.Permanent residents are subject to annex no. 2 of Government decision 376 of 6 June 1995.  Point 11 of the annex requires people in this category to obtain an 'entry-exit visa' in order to leave the country.  In other words, the Moldovan Government gets to decide whether or not a permanent resident can leave the country. This is a clear breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as quoted above (and note that Article 4 (2) of Moldova's constitution says that the UDHR takes precedence over national law).Some will of course say that entry-exit visas are required to control crime.  What if a permanent resident committed a crime and he/she was able to leave the country?  This argument is, of course, a nonsense, as judges and border guards have the power to issue injunctions to stop suspects crossing borders whether or not they have visas, and regardless of their status relative to the Moldovan state (citizens, residents or visitors).Entry-exit visas serve no useful purpose.  They are a relic of the old Soviet control mentality and a breach of fundamental human rights.  They must go, and soon.By the way, as well as removing the visa requirement, there are a couple of other oddities in this order that need to be addressed:There is currently no mechanism by which a permanent resident can renounce their status.  Sometimes people who are resident emigrate, and they need to be able to cancel their residence with a minimum of fuss.In a normal country, the authorities wouldn't batt an eyelid at the expiry of a permit.  It would simply be taken as an implicit request by the holder to discontinue their residence.  In Moldova, however, a resident who doesn't renew his/her permit commits an offence under the law, and that's stupid.The good news is that decisions of Government such as this one can be replaced / updated very easily, without having to go through a parliamentary process.  There is therefore no excuse for leaving Decision 376 of 6.6.1995 unamended.

You may be wondering why I haven't written a post for several months.  In part, it was due to being very busy doing other things, but in part it was also due to my disappointment at realising that all of Moldova's parliamentary parties had become hostages to business interests.  I don't understand or necessarily agree with Mihai Godea's reasons for leaving the PLDM, but he hit the nail on the head when he said that Moldova's economy was being run by the three Vlads - Voronin, Filat and Plahotniuc.There are four parties in parliament, and it has long been apparent that three of them were representing business interests rather than the people who voted for them.  The last straw, however, came when the Liberal Party (my 'last great hope') turned out to also be financed by Plahotniuc and was turning a blind eye to the excessive concentration of media assets in his hands.The problem with this is that the three Vlads effectively get a lot more votes than Mrs Popa in Apartment 27.  They use their money to influence (manipulate?) citizens into casting their votes in the appropriate direction, rather than allowing voters to develop their own opinions based on quality information.  This isn't right, as the Moldovan constitution protects the right to an equal vote. If parties are in-hoc to someone for finance, they do not have the freedom to promote the policies that emanate from their core values, and which are designed to serve all the people of Moldova.  Instead, they must serve the interests of the money which got them into parliament (or local councils, as the case may be).As in many other countries there is an urgent need to restore power to the people by breaking the dependency of political parties on the sponsorship of corporations and wealthy individuals. I'm not so naive that I think the link can be broken completely, however that's no excuse for not trying.Parties incur their major costs during election campaigns, and most of this expense relates to the purchase of publicity.  This is where the focus should beSome ideas that need to be considered:1.  Ban all forms of publicity which treat subjects superficially.  This would include posters, television sound-bites, radio jingles, flyers with little content, television commercials shorter than, say, five minutes.  As well as increasing the quality of debate, this would also reduce campaign costs.2.  Ban all contributions from corporate entities, and limit the amount that individuals are allowed to contribute to a sum that is reasonable for someone on a middle income.  Police this rule, and don't let companies and rich folks channel contributions through individuals.3.  Provide financing to political parties out of the state budget.  In a sense this is a terrible idea (why give my hard-earned taxes to those rascals?), however it should be looked on as being the cost of maintaining a healthy(ish) political system.  Parliamentary parties would receive a certain fixed amount, regardless of the number of seats they hold, in order to promote pluralism.  Extra-parliamentary parties and individuals would receive lower amounts.  All expenditure would be thoroughly audited.PS:  Other ideas welcome.

To a western mind, co-operation entails working closely together towards a common goal in a win-win relationship.In the post-soviet space, however, co-operation can mean something very different, i.e. an unwitting, almost un-noticeable transfer of resources from one party to another.  The resource doesn't have to be money, it could be property, brands, image or a negotiating position.  Whatever, one party normally ends up being done over by the other.In some respects, it's the same with the 2001 "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Moldova", which should be a win-win but is actually one-way traffic.  This treaty is up for renewal in 2011, and both Marian Lupu and Igor Botan have stated that it should be automatically renewed as is (we don't want to upset you-know-who, do we?).At first glance the Treaty s a very innocuous affair, full of high-minded appeals to protection of human rights and promotion of democracy etc., making reference to various international bodies and treaties.  Most of the clauses are of the nature "The parties will collaborate in domain X in accordance with a subsequent treaty Y to be agreed between the parties".Point by PointA deeper read of the treaty reveals some areas of wording which are clearly to Moldova's detriment, however:Russia is categorised as a 'mediator & guarantor' with respect to the Transnistrian conflict.  Russia is neither of these things; she is a participant in the conflict and the sooner that is recognised, the sooner the conflict will be resolved.  Furthermore, use of the term 'guarantor' implies that Russia has the right to intervene militarily if she deems that the combatant parties have breached peace accords.  As we have seen in 2008, that's a very dangerous right to be giving a polity such as Russia.Article 1 mentions the 'right of peoples to self-determination', without providing any context.  Who has the right to self determination?  Moldovan citizens as a whole?  The Gagauz or the people of Transnistria?  Everyone whose name begins with P?  The Lungu family in apartment 12?  Unless clear bounds are provided, it is very dangerous to include such a 'right' in the Treaty.Similarly, Article 10 provides for direct contact between Russian and Moldovan local governments.  This is seemingly harmless, but isn't.  Moscow City and other local administrations have provided substantial support to Transnistrian and Gagauz separatists over the years, undercutting Moldova's attempts to restore constitutional authority.  This clause should be adapted such that all contacts are channelled through the central institutions in Chisinau.Article 12 requires the parties to support each other's attempts to enter international economic and financial groupings.  This is silly.  Why should Moldova support Russia's entry into the WTO, for example, when Russia persists with its intermittent trade embargoes and gas wars?Article 20 is the the most sensitive, as it refers to the language issue.  It gives citizens of both countries living on each other's territories the right to use of their maternal language, and to choice of the language they use education, study & creativity, in accordance with 'international standards'.  It imposes on Moldova an obligation to offer schooling in Russian in the Moldovan public education system, while imposing on Russia the far weaker obligation to allow schooling in Moldovan (but not in the Russian public system).  Let's be straight here:  In the interests of national unity, all primary and secondary schooling should take place in the national language, with other languages being simply subjects taught. The fact that, 20 years after independence, a substantial fraction of Moldova's children are schooled 100% in a foreign language is a national disgrace.  Article 20 should make reference only to the Copenhagen convention on minority rights.  Si punctum.Article 27 is also problematic, as it requires the sides to deepen their participation in the Commonwealth of Independent States.  Due to its constitutional neutrality, Moldova's participation is as deep as it can be.  Furthermore, as Moldova gets closer to the EU, it will necessarily have to weaken its role within the CIS (and may have to withdraw altogether within the 10-year term of the treaty).  This article should be deleted.ObservanceAside from the wording issues mentioned above, the main problem with the treaty is that Russia simply doesn't observe its provisions.  Let me give you some examples:Article 1 commits the two sides to respecting inviolability of borders, territorial integrity and to non-interference in each other's internal affairs.  That presumably is why the 14th Army is parked illegally in Transnistria, why Russia carved off bits of Georgia and why Nariskin came to Chisinau in the hopes of forcing a coalition convenient to Moscow.Article 5 goes further "The sides condemn separatism in all its forms and commit to not supporting separatist movements".  Which is why Russia pays pensions to residents of Transnistria and supports the regime militarily through the presence of the 14th Army and other means.In Article 8 we read "The sides will not take discriminatory measures in their economic relations".   Except for Onisenco's periodic bans on Moldovan wines, vegetables, meat...Other PointsSome parts of the Treaty can be a little bit one sided simply by virtue of the relative sizes of the two nations.  For example, Article 19 commits each nation to holding cultural events relating to the other's language and culture.  The problem here is that, because of the Moldova's small size, the program of Russian cultural events to be run has a very high impact on the local population.  The equivalent Moldovan cultural events run in Russia each year pass by almost unnoticed.  A degree of asymmetry needs to be introduced such that the relative impact on each country is similar.While I believe it is a good thing for Moldova to have healthy relations with Russia in a number of domains, the Treaty is so comprehensive that it imposes an almost suffocating relationship.  It is not healthy for a small, fragile democracy such as Moldova to be in a bear hug with a large, imperialistic and authoritarian state such as Russia.  Consideration should be given to reducing the scope of the Treaty to make the relationship manageable. ConclusionsRussia and Moldova should seek to renew the treaty, but in a different formWording detrimental to Moldova should be amended, as should wording that produces asymmetrical impacts on the two countries.Some weaker and less useful articles should be removed, to reduce the overbearing intensity of the relationshipThe treaty should be signed for one-year only, and renewed annually only if the parties are in full observance of its provisionsPS:  In case you missed it, point four means that Russia should get out of Transnistria!

Baddies hatching a diabolical plan to end life as we know it in Moldova?  In league with wiki-Batman and wiki-Robin? I sure hope not.

Source:  Arena

Source:  Veronica O'Connell (Veripwolf)

No matter what you think about the stupidity of the 40% of Moldovans who voted for the Communists, there is one aspect which should make every Moldovan very very proud.It's the way the election was conducted:real pluralism of opinions and optionsa mainly free media (NIT and omg.md excepted)a high voter turnoutcommitment from overseas voters, who had to endure long, cold queuesintelligent voting (in the sense of ignoring side-shows)Now that Georgia has left the organisation and Ukraine has back-pedalled on a number of freedoms, Moldova is now clearly the leading democracy in the Commonwealth of Independent States.Even the Russians are noticing; a team of journalists in Chisinau for the elections were amazed at the vigorous debates, the freedom with which people expressed their opinions and the desire of Moldovans to cast a vote and make a difference.  All very very different to how things are back home.  Russian speakers can find the relevant article here.Take a bow, Moldova!(Then get quickly back to thinking about how to stop the Democrats going into a miserable coalition with the Communists)

Plahotniuc.A difficult and complex subject.  One doesn't want to appear to be siding with the flip-flopping and discredited Sergiu Mocanu, whose every breath seems to be taken with the goal of demeaning Vlad Plahotniuc.  One doesn't want to disparage wealth or discourage enterprise.  One doesn't want to give the impression that philanthropy is a bad thing, or that media outlets should self-censor.And yet:We still have no reason to believe that Plahotniuc's wealth was acquired legally (and many reasons to believe that it wasn't)The charges levied against him by Mocanu have not been satisfactorily addressedIt appears that Plahotniuc has undue influence in state agencies such as the prosecutor's office and the economic courts He appears to have direct or effective control over excessively large sections of the Moldovan mediaThe last point is in some ways the most worrying.  Plahotniuc controls directly two out of four national channels - Prime, which rebroadcasts Russia's channel one, and 2-plus, which rebroadcasts Romania's channel one.  This concentration is a breach of both the audiovisual code and competition law, but for some strange reason no-one seems to care.And now the concentration is getting worse, with reputable media outlets such as "Timpul" and the "Unimedia/Publika" group transforming themselves into cheerleaders for Plahotniuc.  The image of Constantin Tanase in a pleated skirt waving pom-poms around is one that I would rather not have in my head, but as long as the three agencies keep writing gushy articles about Plahotniuc's Edelweiss Foundation or his Association of Business People it's not going anywhere.The media agencies should instead be writing critical articles investigating the sources of the money Edelweiss is using to bestow gifts on schools and old-folks homes.  They should be asking what Plahotniuc is trying to achieve through the businessman's association.  They should be observing the mechanisms that he has used to build his image ahead of his (open) entry into the political arena.At the very least Timpul, Publika and Unimedia should be disclosing any monies received from Plathoniuc or his associates so that their readers can make up their own minds about editorial bias, and patronise other sources of infomation if necessary.At the very least, the Audiovisual Council should force Plahotniuc to relinquish one of his nationwide channels and bring out into the open his other media interests.Moldova has only just escaped from monopolisation of the media by Voronin and his entourage.  Now, Moldova runs the risk of reconcentrating media power in the hands of a single man, who is also likely to fill a high political office following tomorrow's election.  Let's hope that the PL and the PLDM have sufficient character not to allow Plahotniuc to become Moldova's Berlusconi.  Let's hope also that teh Audiovisual Council and the management of 'independent' media wake up to the peril before it is too late.

Hair lice are notoriously difficult to get rid of.  They cling to strands of  hair with a tenacity worthy of marathon runners.  They can't be washed out with normal shampoos, and the most effective treatment is to kill the patient (in the sense of cutting off all of their hair and burning it).In English a hair louse is colloquially known as a 'nit'.  Moldova has its own 'nit' in the form of the communist-controlled NIT ("New Ideas Televised").  NIT is a generalist channel and is one of only four channels with national coverage.  Its news bulletins, documentaries and talk shows are explicitly pro-communist and denigrate most other parties.  This is a no-no under the electoral code and the audiovisual code, which requires equidistant and impartial coverage of political events.Under the audio-visual code, five sanctions are available and can be applied by the Audiovisual Council.  The sanctions are supposed to be applied based on the degree of harm caused by the contravention.  In the case of repeated contravention the sanctions are supposed to be gradually escalated.  The five sanctions are, in order of seriousness:Written warningSuspension of advertising rights for a periodA monetary fineTemporary suspension of broadcasting licensePermanent deregistrationPrior to yesterday, the Audiovisual Council had applied sanctions 1-3 to NIT as punishments for repeatedly showing bias in its news coverage.  The sanctions had no effect whatsoever on the behaviour of NIT, which continued its propaganda campaign unabashed.  Given that the nation is in the throes of an election campaign and that NIT's broadcasts are having a significant impact on voter intentions, there is a need to take action sufficient to (a) stop and (b) redress NITs manipulation of public opinion.At its meeting yesterday, the audiovisual council should have escalated the sanction as the law requires and suspended NIT's license for a period of time (i.e. a "hair cut").  Instead, they sanctioned the channel for a second time with suspension of advertising (which is like trying to wash nits out of your hair with a shampoo you know won't have any effect).There are three lessons to draw from this:More men and women of character, who are prepared to impartially uphold the law, need to be appointed to the Audiovisual Council, replacing the communist party hacks left over from their period in government.The application of sanctions needs to be clarified (i.e. it should be made crystal clear that the same sanction may not be applied twice for a repeat offence.The sanctions list should be expanded to include reparatory measures.  In the case of NIT, for example, they should have been forced to give air-time to other parties in sufficient quantity so as to balance the pro-communist material already broadcast by the channel.Unfortunately the three steps above require a new parliament to implement.  In the meantime, the best we can hope for is that the Audiovisual Council will grow a spine and that the Moldovan public will see through the lies and half-truths being broadcast by the channel.

Let's keep things dead simple here:The parties on the left of the chart are the bad guys (and some of them are very, very bad).  Don't touch them with a barge-pole.**The parties at the bottom of the chart are too small to get over the 4% threshold.  Don't waste your vote on them, no matter how much you like them.  (As for independents, don't even think about it)The top right is the place to be, and the topper and the righter the better.*

*This grammatical formulation was used under the supervision of trained specialists.  Do not attempt verbiage of this form this in your own home.**The parties on the right aren't necessarily good, they're just much less bad.