What kind of president does Moldova need (or does not need)?

Alecu Reniță, Deputy of the First Parliament

Already in the First Parliament, I was against the legislative initiative to create the presidential institution. Why? For the simple reason that it was easier for Moscow to administer the former colonies through a head of state, not through parliaments. My fears came true: in December 1991, the president of Moldova signed in Alma-Ata the accession of Moldova to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In one form or another, the presidential institution in Chișinău was permanently linked to the Kremlin and tried to dictate Russia’s interests in Moldova. Next pro-Russian presidents Lucinschi, Voronin, and Dodon demonstrated how useless, costly, and parasitic the presidential institution is, being an incubator of officials without Romanian dignity and conscience. In 2000 we made significant changes to the Constitution, legally transferring the dominance of power to the Parliament. I assure you that if in the last four years Moldova wouldn’t have had a traitorous head of state, a partier, a parasite, we could have transferred millions of euros to sick and hungry pensioners and not to the personal pleasures of the actual president Dodon. I repeat for voters intoxicated by Dodon’s lies – don’t vote for this demagogue, who took your last slice of bread and screwed you up for four years.

Mihai Adauge, historian

On November 1, we must go to the polls because many efforts and sacrifices have been made over the years for this right. Times are turbulent, options are confusing, and candidates are far from being univocal moral and credible. Besides, the electoral competition involves some of the most sophisticated technologies to divert people from proper judgment. In uncertainty situations, I am always guided by two master principles in choosing a leader, be it a nation, an army, a state. Firstly, a leader must love their team and people, and secondly, he/she must have the wisdom to lead.

Valentina Cuşnir, Italian diaspora

During these times, we don’t need a president, no matter who he or she is. Objectively, none of the candidates, for various reasons, deserves to become president. Of the eight, three must be excluded from the start – Dodon, Usatîi, and Ivanov, as totally compromised. How they are and whose they are, enough has been written. The other fives’ mistake is that they don’t get along. They had to gather, discuss, and go to the polls with a joint program to stop the decline caused by Dodon and his gang. Confidence in the presidential institution would have increased, and citizens would have voted together. 

Corneliu Rusnac, journalist

I think that the position of president should be reduced to what the logic of the Constitution dictates. Just let’s be an honorary one as, for example, in Italy, Israel, or Austria. Part of the president’s powers should go to the Parliament, another – to the prime minister. These two institutions – the Government and the Parliament, should play a vital role in the state. Let’s analyze the role played by the presidential institution, especially after 2000. It was a continuous generator of political crises, especially when the head of state had to be elected. We see that the situation has not improved even after the president’s direct election because it is challenging for the head of state in Moldova to be only a referee, as required by the Constitution, not a player. That is why I think we should have a classic parliamentary state, and the first person in the country should be the prime minister.