Alexandru Tanase: There is quasi-authoritarian system standing behind semblance of democracy in Moldova

Alexandru Tanase

Infotag’s interview with Constitutional Court Judge, ex-Minister of Justice Alexandru Tanase.  

Question:  Mr. Tanase, what do you think was your key achievement as Minister of Justice – the one you are really proud of?

Answer:   I feel a bit awkward when asked to speak of my achievements. But I can underline one circumstance that distinguishes my work as a minister from the activities of other ministers:  for the first time ever in Moldova, a politician was appointed as a Minister of Justice.   

During the 14 months of my ministerial tenure, I had managed to implement two reforms in the sector:  the reform of the system of the execution of judgments, and the reform of the Bar. During my office, we worked out a package of bills on a minor reform of the judiciary, in particular a reform of the mechanisms of criminal and civil procedures.

Q:  Why do you think it is important to have a politician as Minister of Justice?

A:  Justice and economics are spheres, where any decision appears to be a political one. A person having no political weight is unable to do anything. I have managed to promote certain projects thank to the political weight of the Liberal Democratic Party at that time. If a government member is a usual technocrat, he has no possibility to promote his ideas. Take the Government of Premier Vasile Tarlev, whose ministers were not political figures and were just administrators in their respective spheres, while the entire policy was conceived and made in the presidential office. I think we should not use such model.

Q:  The civil society criticizes the reform of the system of the execution of   judgments because executors are reluctant to fulfill such judgments, which do not ensure them an income. It means, for instance, that a mother will receive no alimony for her child only because there is nobody who would execute the court’s decision.

A:  The law compels bailiffs to execute court judgments, and, for instance, judgments on the reinstatement in office and receipt of alimony are executed free of charge. But some bailiffs permit arbitrariness in their behavior. In such instances, they must be brought to stand disciplinary responsibility.

On the other hand, receipt of alimony has always been a problem, but due to other reasons. A considerable part of our citizens work illegally, so it is impossible to receive court-set sums from them. The problem of alimony depends on the society’s attitude to it, and this is why it cannot be resolved only through the justice system. The society, and particularly employers, ought to condemn those people who deny care to their own children.  

Q:  Two years ago, the governing Alliance for European Integration promised a justice reform. But with the exception of only very small changes, the society has seen no reform as such. Why?   

A:  There are two ways of carrying out reforms:  you may work out strategies that will hardly be realized, and you may promote urgent reform projects. The Republic of Moldova is a champion in the number of strategies and action plans that would not be put into reality. Many officials think that now they can create just the semblance of a judiciary reform and of law enforcement agencies through working out strategies and introducing purely formal changes, which in reality only preserve the existing system.    

As for me, I am convinced that the situation must be changed cardinally. In this context, the biggest problem is the human factor – people. We have good laws, which on the whole correspond to the democratic state’s requirements. But if we do not replace those who are supposed to put these laws into reality, nothing will be changed here. If only I had had the support of my colleagues during my ministerial office, I would promote young people into the judiciary system – people with another mentality, who would not perceive the work of e.g. a judge as their private business.       

Q:  But corruption exists even at law departments in universities. Are students trained there in the spirit of a private judiciary business as well?   

A:  I agree that far from everything is perfect in our education system. But this does not mean that there are no decent, incorruptible people among students and teachers. We in Moldova have about 500 judges and 5-6 thousand university graduates in this specialty annually. I think that there exists a really good choice from among well-prepared and honest judges.    

In 2009, the Lord gave us a chance to change something in the country over nearest 4-5 years, to prevent our youth from quitting their native land. If we don’t do this, there exists a risk for Moldova to become a country inhabited only by deputies, ministers and officers in various uniforms. Last 2 years, we have been eye-witnesses of endless wars between top officials in the country governance, whereas the country keeps on moving – slowly but steadily – towards the bottom.  

Q:  Is nepotism the reason why reforms would not be implemented in Moldova?    

A:  Nepotism is a very narrow phenomenon. Our real, all-embracing problem is corruption existing on a much greater scale. Corruption is not only bribery. The promotion of an incompetent judge makes him issue illicit judgments so as to thank those mighty ones who have put him to this post. Illicit judgments make harm not only to one person concerned – they undermines the society’s trust in justice.   

Q:  What does a democratic power need for reforms – political will or money?  

A:  In the post-Soviet area, democratic authorities come across a certain difficulty: upon coming into power, they forget about reforms and start struggling against one another. That was how Russian democrats behaved under President Boris Yeltsin. And the same happened in Ukraine under President Victor Yushenko. Unfortunately, this is happening in Moldova, too. For conducting reforms, you have to have a clear vision of what you want to achieve, and you need a firm political will. Money is what you need the last because leaders with a firm will and clear vision are able to find money.

 Q:  The European Union has made it clear that if the Republic of Moldova fails to achieve successes, it will not receive the Union’s 50-million-euro financial assistance for the judiciary reform. Will Moldova be able to fulfill the European Union’s conditions?      

A:  Deep reforms are impossible in the conditions of a political instability. However, the allocation of the EU-offered funds does not quite meet Moldova’s needs. We need funds to pay salaries of minimum 15-20 thousand lei a month to judges and minimum 7-8 thousand lei to court secretaries. We need millions of lei in investment to build an elementary infrastructure for courts so as to stop holding court sessions in tiny, shabby rooms. The European Union does not finance such kind of needs therefore we have to find domestic reserves. But the authorities would not provide such financing because they have other priorities.   

People in power must at last come to regard justice as their first priority in deeds, not only in words. My initiative to set up a national council for judiciary reform did not find the authorities’ support. When Acting President Marian Lupu decided to do the same – establish such a National Council, a scandal broke out over why such Council should be under the jurisdiction of the president, not of the Government. All this only demonstrated once again that the judiciary reform is not a priority but, rather, a change coin.    

I have an impression that all we see here is an attempt to imitate reforms in order to deceive Europeans and Americans to make them continue crediting the Moldovan Government. This is an attempt to utilize the European Union’s and United States’ becoming kind of hostages:  following the defeat of their political projects in the FSU area, particularly after their fiasco in Ukraine, they will certainly be trying to present Moldova as a successful story. But if we switch off our TV sets and look around, we will see that we are far from being a successful story. I don’t think that this illusion can be maintained without radical changes. For 8 years, President Vladimir Voronin tried to do that, but he failed to. I don’t understand why this should work off now.  

Q:  You have many a time spoken about the financing of political parties. How do you think this financing can be made transparent?  

A:   Parties in Moldova are the kind the society perceives them to be. The Law on the financing of political parties should be adopted, I admit. But it will hardly be effective unless other relevant amendments are introduced into the legislation concerned. The electoral system in Moldova is vicious, and it only ruins political competition in the country. Before coming into power, the Liberal Democratic Party [in which Alexandru Tanase was the second important-most personality] promised to change the system and to replace it with a mixed system. However, this electoral pledge was forgotten because political kings treat usual party members as slaves and are afraid of losing the possibility to use and control them eternally.    

I would characterize the present situation as imitation of democracy, with a quasi-authoritarian system hidden behind it. At the first glance, we have political parties, but in reality we have only one-man show. Yes we have ministers, but they will never lift a finger without boss’ order.     

I have an impression that an unhappy attempt is being made to trace-copy the political system of the Russian Federation, where a perfect democratic system exists on the paper, but in reality – something totally different. In addition, one should never forget that Russia is able to pay its bills without begging endless foreign credits, and that Russians do not have to work in all parts of the world to earn their families’ living.   

Q:  And how about the transparent financing of election campaigns?  International observers maintain that real election expenditures are 30-40% higher than what parties write in their reports they send to the Central Election Commission.  

A:  I know how much an election campaign costs. When I hear that a party has spent 8 million lei or so for an election campaign, I just start laughing, for reported figures do not usually cover even expenditures for advertising.    

Q:  Which solution do you see to the question of monitoring of officials’ property?  

A:  Officials in Moldova are broadly divisible into several categories. As for deputies, 90% of them live only on their salaries. The rest 10% are people of business, and they have got into politics because they have money for this.

As for ministers, I have never heard of rich ministers, except our Prime Minister, Mr. Vladimir Filat. It is necessary to reform conceptually the existing tax system. But like in the case with the judiciary reform, the tax reform will be just pointless unless honest people are brought into the tax system.   

Q:  Why lobbyism would not be introduced officially in Moldova?    

A:  Lobbying groups operate well only in transparent and democratic systems. And where there is corruption, you don’t require an official lobbying. Unofficially, we have groups of lobbyists. But they do not promote bills to parliament: to solve their problems, they simply give bribes to stated officials and to judges.   

Infotag:  Thank you very much for your interview, Mr. Tanase.

Infotag