A torn country

The term “torn country” was consecrated by Samuel P. Huntington in his famous book The Clash of Civilizations. In essence, it is a country in whose social texture there are faults between the cultural and/or religious background of the society and the totally different direction in which the elites and part of the population want to take it for economic or political reasons. In other words, the civilization towards which a part of the country wants to go is not supported by tradition and values.

Turkey is one of the examples given, but for the subject of this commentary, the use of Russia as an example is more relevant. Arguing the inclusion of Russia, Huntington noted, among other things, that in the 90s, 40% of the population had a positive attitude towards Western civilization, while 36% had a negative attitude.

Unfortunately, the result of the recent referendum seems to place the Republic of Moldova, keeping the proportions, in the category of “torn countries”. Even if the majority result was in favor of joining the EU, the extremely small difference between the two categories of voters shows a strong division of society beyond the Prut.

Such a result came as a shock, some analysts rushing to find culprits including Moldovan presidency included. I think it is a big error, and the errors must be looked for elsewhere and in another period. In fact, in the four years since she has been president, Mrs. Maia Sandu has managed to gather, as much as she could, the broken pieces of the Moldovan society and assemble the “bowl” in which a thin majority voted “yes”.

There is a quasi-consensus regarding Russia’s involvement in influencing the results of the referendum. However, what many seem to omit is that, in a geopolitical competition for the future of Moldova, Russia is not playing a match with Mrs. Maia Sandu, but with Romania and the EU. And the game is zero-sum: the success of Russia means the failure of Romania and the EU.

After two decades of inconsistent, sometimes naive and uncoordinated approaches, it was an illusion that Romania and the EU would manage, in just 4 years, by financing generous aid projects, to wipe the propaganda, initially Soviet and then Russian, to which Moldovans were subjected for decades, with the complicity of local leaders. Not by chance, the segmentation of voters shows that the anti-EU vote was directly correlated with age or, in other words, with the period in which the respective population segment was the subject of the informational environment coming from the East.

It would have been a miracle, in the absence, for decades, of a pragmatic project by Romania to remove Moldova from Russia’s influence, to witness a change in collective mentality just because, in recent years, financial and economic aid has flowed from West. As the motivation behind the vote was not a rational one, but rather one given by the emotions inoculated by the informational space in which the population lived for decades, without the possibility of being exposed to the same extent to an objective informational alternative. And Romania, having the benefit of the language, should have played a crucial role. The closure of Russian propaganda channels only in recent years and the expansion of communication channels coming from the West was late. The harm had been done, the mental modeling was complete.

The segmentation of the participants in the referendum provides us with evidence in this respect, evidence that for us, who are in an unfenced and diverse informational space, seems incomprehensible. Thus, the vast majority of Ukrainian Moldovans voted against joining the EU. Moreover, two regions from Moldova, Ungheni and Cahul, voted “no”, even though they had benefited from EU funding of tens of millions of euros. Again, not the rational criteria, obvious to us, prevailed in these segments of the population of the Republic of Modova. More important was the collective mentality created by decades of Russian propaganda, which did nothing which was a catalyst for the manipulations and false information circulated in the public space across the Prut in the last year.

Could Romania do more to counter the Russian propaganda of the last decades and bring the Republic of Moldova closer to Europe? Certainly. But that would have assumed a sophisticated and excellent strategy executed by Romanian institutions and leaders. Unfortunately, the feeling was more of improvised actions, which were not based on understanding the frustrations, concerns, complexes, myths rooted in the collective mentality of the population across the Prut. The political connections between Romania and the Republic of Moldova were sometimes incomprehensible and even controversial.

It is not clear even today what specific objectives, what roadmap Romania had in relation to the Republic of Moldova in the last decades. But I think we can be sure of at least one thing, namely that they wanted to release the Republic of Moldova from Russia’s circle of influence and redirect it geopolitically to the West. By this measure, the results of the referendum suggest a failure.

An explanation lies in what some might consider a paradox: unionism, sometimes aggressively practiced in some decision-making circles in Romania, was rather a dividing factor in Moldova that Russia amplified and used with maximum efficiency. Thus, many of the aggressive promoters of unionism, ignoring the lack of enthusiasm of the population across the Prut, turned into “useful naives” of Russia.

The fact that, through a “miracle”, some of the unionist politicians ended up later proving their close ties with Russia should have given us serious thought, because examples could be found during the 90s, but also in the more recent years.

Among the first to notice the divisive effect of unionism in Moldova was Maia Sandu, who redirected Moldova’s aspirations towards the EU, silencing the discussions that divided society. And such an orientation would certainly have been much more successful if we had been able to show in the Romanian Moldova the benefits of joining the EU. However, the lack of a country strategy and vision made this part of Romania to remain one of the most underdeveloped areas and the main source of emigration in Western Europe. Romania’s Moldova was never a “showcase” of the benefits of joining the EU. Moreover, not just once, the public discourse in Romania blamed the EU for unpopular decisions, even if they made a lot of economic or political sense.

Fortunately, in recent years, in the context of Russian aggression in Ukraine, Romania and the EU have finally come to the conclusion that the stability of the Republic of Moldova is the most important. Any other options based more on emotions and nostalgia would only have deepened the faults in society, and not just along the lines of Transnistria or Gagauzia. It is in the interest of Ukraine as well as Romania and the EU that the Republic of Moldova becomes a solid outpost of Western civilization. However, we are in a very big time crunch.

Can anything be done for the definitive gearing of the Republic of Moldova on the path to the EU? First of all, the Romanians and their leaders should understand that the subject of unionism must disappear until, possibly, it could be relaunched (or not) by the Republic of Moldova itself. Secondly, a more objective and credible media space should be ensured. The reason why Russian sources are more credible for a large part of the population should be investigated and countered. The myths persistently promoted by Russian propaganda should be dismantled by credible opinion leaders. They must be identified and supported. Romania’s Moldova must be helped to know an explosive development thus becoming the image of the Republic of Moldova in the years to come. The financial assistance of the EU and Romania for Moldova must be increased and the economic development accelerated to allow the return of a part of those who emigrated.

But all this not in a week. For this week, the only solution is a massive mobilization of the pro-Europeans and the persuasion of the undecided. This is the only way to “buy” the time necessary for the preparation of next year’s parliamentary elections and the continuation of the European path of the Republic of Moldova.

As we speak, the whole project is hanging by a thread.