DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Moldova

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Moldova Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Moldova November 16, 2019 – December 8, 2019 Detailed Methodology • The survey fieldwork was carried out by Magenta Consulting on behalf of the International Republican Institute’s Center for Insights in Survey Research. • Data was collected throughout Moldova (with the exception of Transnistria) between November 16, 2019 and December 8, 2019 through face-to-face interviews in respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of n=1,204 permanent residents of Moldova aged 18 and older and eligible to vote and is representative of the general population by age, gender, region and settlement size. • Sampling frame: Moldova Statistical Databank. Weighting: Data was weighted for age groups and gender using newly released population figures by the National Bureau of Statistics. • A multistage probability sampling method was used, with random route and next birthday respondent selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts (raions) of Moldova are grouped into 11 groups; all regions (with the exception of Transnistria) were surveyed. • Stage two: Selection of the settlements (cities and villages). • Settlements were selected at random. • The number of settlements selected in each region was proportional to the share of population living in the particular type of settlement in each region. • Stage three: Primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.8 points at the 95% confidence level. • The response rate was 62 percent. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the United States Agency for International Development. 2 Mood of the Country In general, would you say that Moldova is heading in the right direction or in the wrong direction? Right direction Wrong direction Don't know/No answer 90% 83% 82% 79% 78% 80% 73% 74% 73% 71% 69% 68% 68% 67% 70% 66% 61% 58% 57% 58% 62% 60% 54% 55% 54% 51% 53% 47% 45% 50% 51% 47% 42% 40% 38% 38% 41% 40% 42% 41% 32% 37% 26% 30% 34% 33% 32% 33% 30% 31% 20% 27% 19% 24% 24%27% 23% 23% 22% 21% 13% 11% 9% 10% 17% 16% 10% 14% 15% 14% 15% 14% 5% 5% 5% 5% 12% 13% 12% 10% 11% 11% 1% 10% 8% 9% 8% 8% 6% 6% 9% 0% 5% 7% Apr-06 Apr-08 Jan-12 Oct-15 Oct-17 Oct-18 Jun-09 Jun-14 Jun-18 Jun-19 Sep-10 Sep-14 Sep-16 Mar-04 Mar-04 Mar-07 Mar-16 Mar-17 Feb-10 Feb-11 Feb-18 Aug-11 Dec-11 Dec-18 Dec-19 Nov-04 Nov-04 Nov-08 Nov-09 May-10 *In December 2014, news broke of a major banking scandal involving nearly $1 billion missing from three state banks. The scandal is often referred to as “the stolen billion.” **In 2016, Moldova conducted the first popular election of the president since 1996. Igor Dodon was elected in the second round contest on November 13, 2016. 4 How would you evaluate the prevailing mood of the Moldovan population? Nationwide Chisinau 7% Belief that the future will definitely be better 3% 30% Hope that the future will be somewhat better 28% 21% Not much hope for a better future 27% 11% Apathy, indifference 11% 12% Insecurity, worry, fear for the future 13% 16% Total disappointment, disbelief in any improvement 17% 3% Don't know/No answer 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 5 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the pace of change in the country? I am satisfied; change is happening at the right pace I am dissatisfied; change is not happening fast enough I am dissatisfied; change is happening too fast No change is taking place Don’t know/No answer December 2019 5% 47% 7% 38% 3% June 2019 6% 45% 7% 40% 2% December 2018 10% 46% 10% 33% 1% October 2018 7% 49% 7% 35% 2% June 2018 7% 52% 7% 32% 2% February 2018 5% 44% 6% 42% 2% October 2017 4% 48% 7% 39% 2% March 2017 10% 45% 9% 33% 3% September 2016 3% 38% 7% 49% 3% March 2016 4% 31% 15% 46% 4% October 2015 1% 30% 15% 50% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6 Over the last 12 months, how has the economic situation of Moldova changed? Improved a lot Improved somewhat Stayed the same Worsened somewhat Worsened a lot Don't know/No answer December 2019 1% 15% 52% 18% 9% 5% June 2019 1% 18% 35% 25% 19% 3% December 2018 3% 20% 40% 21% 14% 2% October 2018 2% 18% 41% 23% 13% 4% June 2018 1% 18% 45% 22% 10% 4% February 2018 1% 16% 42% 24% 14% 3% October 2017 15% 45% 21% 16% 3% March 2017 1% 16% 35% 29% 15% 3% September 2016 1% 6% 25% 30% 35% 3% March 2016 1% 6% 23% 32% 36% 2% October 2015 4% 16% 34% 42% 4% September 2014 6% 22% 24% 21% 19% 7% June 2014 4% 20% 33% 23% 14% 6% January 2012 2% 13% 31% 28% 22% 4% December 2011 2% 15% 20% 31% 29% 3% August 2011 5% 23% 34% 17% 18% 3% February 2011 3% 25% 27% 22% 18% 5% September 2010 5% 18% 28% 26% 17% 6% May 2010 2% 14% 30% 30% 19% 5% February 2010 2% 11% 24% 38% 21% 4% November 2009 2% 8% 34% 39% 10% 7% June 2009 1% 9% 22% 42% 20% 5% November 2008 2% 20% 30% 28% 15% 5% April 2008 2% 13% 30% 29% 20% 6% March 2007 4% 24% 32% 27% 10% 4% April 2006 3% 24% 36% 27% 5% 5% November 2004 5% 26% 37% 22% 6% 4% March 2004 3% 23% 37% 25% 9% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 7 How would you describe the current economic situation of your household? Very good Somewhat good Somewhat bad Very bad Don't know/No answer Nationwide 1% 47% 33% 13% 6% Chisinau 51% 34% 7% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 8 What is the most important problem facing Moldova today? (Respondents permitted to supply three spontaneous answers; problems mentioned by at least 2 percent of respondents) Economy: Unemployment 40% Economy: Cost of living/High prices 36% Low income 33% Corruption 32% Emigration 22% Poverty 20% Pensions 12% Infrastructure 12% Internal conflicts 11% Economy: Other/General 11% Insecurity 9% Healthcare 8% Education 8% Crime/Public Safety 4% Social services/Benefits 4% Economy: Small business opportunities/Access to loans 3% Agriculture 3% Environment 3% Housing 2% Don't know/No answer 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 9 What is the most important problem facing your town/village today? (Respondents permitted to supply three spontaneous answers; problems mentioned by at least 2 percent of respondents) Economy: Unemployment 43% Economy: Cost of living/High prices 35% Infrastructure 30% Low income 25% Emigration 17% Poverty 14% Corruption 12% Cleanliness/Insufficient trash bins 10% Insufficient street lighting 8% Pensions 7% Water 7% Healthcare 7% Insecurity 6% Education 6% Stray animals 5% Social services/Benefits 5% Economy: Other/General 5% Agriculture 4% Economy: Small business opportunities/Access to loans 3% Internal conflicts 3% Housing 3% Crime/Public Safety 3% Environment 3% No (other) problem 3% Lack of daycares and kindergartens 2% Lack of public transportation 2% Electricity 2% Don't know/No answer 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 10 What is the most important problem facing your household today? (Respondents permitted to supply three spontaneous answers; problems mentioned by at least 2 percent of respondents) Economy: Cost of living/High prices 55% Low income 51% Economy: Unemployment 24% Healthcare 21% Pensions 19% Emigration 11% Poverty 10% Housing 8% Social services/Benefits 7% Insecurity 6% Economy: Other/General 4% Water 4% Infrastructure 4% Agriculture 3% Economy: Small business opportunities/Access to loans 3% No (other) problem 3% Corruption 2% Education 2% Environment 2% Electricity 2% Don't know/No answer 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 11 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way democracy is developing in our country? Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know/No answer Nationwide 3% 26% 34% 31% 7% Chisinau 2% 20% 34% 39% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 12 How would you the describe the current status of each of the following items in our country? Very good Somewhat good Somewhat bad Very bad Don't know/No answer Freedom of expression 8% 41% 28% 19% 4% Media freedom 7% 45% 22% 14% 12% National security 6% 36% 32% 16% 10% Democracy 3% 27% 35% 27% 8% Law and order 2% 23% 40% 31% 4% Access to justice 2% 26% 29% 26% 18% Human rights 1% 32% 39% 22% 5% Economy 1% 9% 37% 48% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 13 Views on Corruption Do you consider our country to be governed in the interest of the majority of people or in the interest of some groups? 8% 14% Majority of people Some groups Don't know/No answer 78% 15 Now I would like to discuss corruption with you. When I say corruption, I mean having to do a favor, give a gift or pay a bribe because someone misuses their position for personal gains. To what extent, if any, has corruption had a negative impact on you? It has had a lot of negative impact It has had some negative impact It has had little negative impact It has not had any negative impact Don’t know/No answer Nationwide 18% 20% 11% 36% 15% Chisinau 22% 26% 13% 29% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 16 In the past 12 months, how often, if at all, have you had to do a favor, give a gift or pay a bribe? Not at all Less frequently Monthly Weekly Daily Don’t know/No answer Nationwide 61% 25% 4%<1% 10% Chisinau 59% 24% 7% 1% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 17 Whom did you have to do favors for, give gifts or pay bribes to? (Respondents who had to do this in the last 12 months; respondents permitted to supply several answers) Nationwide; n=355 Chisinau; n=93 74% Doctors/Hospital employee 70% 27% Teachers/University official 42% 26% Police 27% 10% Kindergarten administrator 19% 7% Local government officials 3% 7% Other (not local) government officials 4% 5% Border official 4% 2% Judge/Lawyer 2% 1% Business people 5% Don’t know/No answer 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Election Observation Mission Republic of Moldova Parliamentary Elections, 24 February 2019
    OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Election Observation Mission Republic of Moldova Parliamentary Elections, 24 February 2019 INTERIM REPORT 15 January – 4 February 2019 8 February 2019 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The 24 February parliamentary elections will be the first held under the newly introduced mixed electoral system with 50 members of parliament (MPs) elected through proportional closed lists in a single nationwide constituency and 51 MPs elected in single member majoritarian constituencies. ODIHR and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) have previously raised concerns about the lack of an inclusive public debate and consultation during the change to the mixed system and because the issue polarized public opinion and did not achieve a broad consensus. • Significant amendments were made to the Election Code in 2017 to reflect the mixed electoral system, improve regulation of financing, and to introduce a number of other changes. Observation by ODIHR EOM to date has showed that some ambiguities in the legal framework remain open to interpretation. • Three levels of election administration are responsible for organizing the elections: the Central Election Commission (CEC), 51 District Electoral Councils (DECs) and 2,143 Precinct Electoral Bureaus (PEBs). The CEC established 125 polling stations in 37 countries for out-of-country voting and designated 47 polling stations on the government controlled territory for voters in Transniestria. CEC and DEC sessions have so far been open to observers and published their decisions on-line. The CEC is undertaking an extensive training programme for election officials and other stakeholders, including on ensuring voting rights of people with disabilities, and a voter information campaign focused on the specifics of the new electoral system.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnicity, Confession and Intercultural Dialogue at the European Union's
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Ethnicity, Confession and Intercultural Dialogue at the European Union’s East Border Brie, Mircea and Horga, Ioan and Şipoş, Sorin University of Oradea, Romania 2011 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44082/ MPRA Paper No. 44082, posted 31 Jan 2013 05:28 UTC ETHNICITY, CONFESSION AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE AT THE EUROPEAN UNION EASTERN BORDER ETHNICITY, CONFESSION AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE AT THE EUROPEAN UNION EASTERN BORDER Mircea BRIE Ioan HORGA Sorin ŞIPOŞ (Coordinators) Debrecen/Oradea 2011 This present volume contains the papers of the international conference Ethnicity, Confession and Intercultural Dialogue at the European Union‟s East Border, held in Oradea between 2nd-5th of June 2011, organized by Institute for Euroregional Studies Oradea-Debrecen, University of Oradea and Department of International Relations and European Studies, with the support of the European Commission and Bihor County Council. CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY STUDIES Mircea BRIE Ethnicity, Religion and Intercultural Dialogue in the European Border Space.......11 Ioan HORGA Ethnicity, Religion and Intercultural Education in the Curricula of European Studies .......19 MINORITY AND MAJORITY IN THE EASTERN EUROPEAN AREA Victoria BEVZIUC Electoral Systems and Minorities Representations in the Eastern European Area........31 Sergiu CORNEA, Valentina CORNEA Administrative Tools in the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Ethnic Minorities .............................................................................................................47
    [Show full text]
  • Impediments to Loan Absorption
    MF STRATEGY The European Investment Bank ‘Fruit Garden of Moldova’ Loan Impediments to Loan Absorption 30th May 2020 MF STRATEGY Executive Summary The horticultural sector of the Republic of Moldova represents a third from the total agricultural production and has a high importance in the economic development of the country. In recent years, it has registered an increase in both, volume of production and volume of export. Moreover, the sector has recorded significant performance by expanding the areas of orchards with the latest super-intensive and modern technologies. The sector demonstrates an increased demand and promising perspectives. To further support the sector, local authorities have developed the Horticulture Sector Development Programme for 2020-2026. One of the Programme objectives is to attract innovative investments in the sector. The Programme estimates an investment need of EUR 789 million in horticultural sector. The Fruit Garden of Moldova is a strategic international Project. It delivers social and economic outcomes in Moldova when farmers borrow from local banks cheaper long-term financing provided by the European Investment Bank and invest these funds in the horticultural value chain. Every euro borrowed from the credit line which was issued by the European Investment Bank for this Project generates 2.1 euros in direct investments in the Moldovan agriculture. The tax exemptions offered by the Government of Moldova to Project beneficiaries stimulate further investments, which are predominantly made in the rural areas of the country. A set of impediments affected the setup, launch and efficient implementation of the Project. Political instability was a major obstacle for the Project setup.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mixed Electoral System: a New Challenge for Audiovisual Media in Moldova
    This policy brief series is part of the Media Enabling Democracy, Inclusion and Accountability in Moldova (MEDIA-M) project April 2019 | No 8 The Mixed Electoral System: A New Challenge for Audiovisual Media in Moldova By Olga Gututui Introduction Parliamentary elections took place in Moldova on February 24, 2019. This was the first time that the Moldovan electorate voted under a mixed electoral system.1 The change to a mixed system from the former closed-list proportional system was a challenge not only for Moldova’s electoral process, but also for the local media that reported on that process. Recent legislation, including Moldova’s Code of Audiovisual Media Services and the amended Electoral Code, imposed new reporting guidelines on media institutions aimed at ensuring accurate and unbiased electoral coverage. This policy brief focuses on audiovisual media coverage during the 2019 parliamentary electoral cycle, analyz- ing the extent to which the media’s de jure obligations under the mixed electoral system were implemented in reality. It concludes with a number of recommendations to improve the regulatory environment and decrease bias in electoral reporting. Setting the Stage: Media Ownership and used as a tool to manipulate public opinion and discredit political opponents.3 These individuals include the highly Political Affiliations influential leader of the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM) It is widely acknowledged that Moldova’s media and Vladimir Plahotnuic, Corneliu Furculita of the Socialist Party advertising sector is concentrated in the hands of a few of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM), and Dumitru Chitoroaga, persons,2 opening the door to allow Moldovan media to be representative of the Shor Party.
    [Show full text]
  • Moldova, Into a Campaign to Discredit the Political Opposition As Well As Some Civil Society Representatives
    The government led its affiliated media outlets, such as the public broadcaster Teleradio Moldova, into a campaign to discredit the political opposition as well as some civil society representatives. The government accused NGOs and members of the Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections 2009 of involvement in the protests. MoldovA 170 MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2010 INTRODUCTION OVERALL SCORE: 1.61 M Political complexities dominated Moldova’s media scene in 2009, and the worldwide financial crisis also affected the media. For the first seven months, elections were the focus, and the results of the April 5 parliamentary vote raised serious questions. The governing Communist Party (PCRM) gained 60 out of 101 seats, and the political oldo Popposition (including the Liberal Party [LP], the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova [PLDM], and Our Moldova Alliance [AMN]) won the remaining 40 seats. The parliamentary opposition did not recognize the results. On April 6, young people organized a silent march, holding candles that symbolized “the death of democracy” in Moldova. Tens of thousands of youth spontaneously gathered the next day, but due to the interference of provocateurs, the protest turned violent, with vandalizing of the parliamentary and presidential buildings. More v than 50 police officers were injured, and hundreds of young people were detained; some alleged torture. At least one young person died. The Communist Party leader, vladimir voronin, accused the opposition of attempting a A coup, and suggested that Romania and Serbia were involved. The government led its affiliated media outlets, such as the public broadcaster Teleradio Moldova, into a campaign to discredit the political opposition as well as some civil society representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • [Imas] Barometrul Socio-Politic. Decembrie 2019
    barometrul socio-politic Republica Moldova decembrie 2019 raport elaborat de: Doru Petruţi – [email protected] www.imas.md metodologie eşanonare: stra*ficat, probabilist, tri-stadial; volum eşan%on: 1090 respondenţi, 18 ani şi peste; criterii de straficare: 12 unităţi administra*v-teritoriale (UAT). mediu rezidenţial (urban-rural). mărimea localităţilor urbane (2 *puri). *pul localităţilor rurale (centru de comună/sat aparţinător); stadii de randomizare: localitatea (90 localităţi selectate), gospodăria, persoana; reprezenta%vitatea: eşan*onul este reprezenta*v pentru populaţia adultă a Republicii Moldova, exclusiv Transnistria; eroarea maximă de eşan*onare este de ±3.0%; interviurile: au fost realizate la domiciliile respondenţilor de către 48 operatori din reţeaua [imas], în limbile română şi rusă; perioada de culegere a datelor: 02 – 14 decembrie 2019; comanditar sondaj: Public Media Grup structură eşan%on …profil socio-demografic variabila grup număr de persoane procent masculin 494 45.3% gen feminin 596 54.7% 18-25 ani 93 8.5% 26-40 ani 253 23.2% vârsta 41-55 ani 261 23.9% 56-70 ani 374 34.3% peste 71 ani 109 10.1% studii medii incomplete 139 12.8% șc. generală sau profesională 527 48.3% educaţie liceu/șc. postliceală/colegiu 173 15.9% studii superioare 247 22.7% nu răspunde 4 0.3% încadrat în câmpul muncii 374 34.3% temporar nu lucrează 143 13.1% ocupaţie nu lucrează 571 52.4% nu răspunde 2 0.2% moldovean/român 860 78.9% naţionalitate altele (rus, ucrainean etc.) 228 20.9% nu răspunde 2 0.2% municipii 275 25.2% mediu rezidenţă alte orașe 234 21.5% sate 581 53.3% total 1090 100.0% *Datele nu au fost ponderate.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Elections in the Republic of Moldova (20 October 2019)
    STATUTORY FORUM Report CG-FORUM(2020)01-04 28 September 2020 Local elections in the Republic of Moldova (20 October 2019) Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Monitoring Committee) Rapporteur:1 Vladimir PREBILIC, Slovenia (L, SOC/G/PD) Recommendation 443 (2020).................................................................................................................. 3 Explanatory memorandum ...................................................................................................................... 5 Summary Following an invitation of the authorities of the Republic of Moldova, the Congress carried out a mission to observe the local elections in the country on 20 October 2019. Prior to the main mission, a reduced Congress Delegation visited Chisinau from 2 to 4 October to carry out a pre-electoral visit. The Delegation to observe the 20 October local elections was deployed from 17 to 21 October 2019 and involved 24 observers from 21 European countries. On the Election Day, the Delegation was divided into eleven teams, which visited some 200 polling stations across the country and observed the voting as well as the counting process. Technically, the elections were well prepared and administered by an overall experienced electoral staff at the level of the polling stations. The Congress welcomes some of the efforts made by the Moldovan authorities to improve the legal framework for elections, in particular amendments aiming at a better regulation of financing of political parties and regulation of campaign activities. However, the changes were introduced close to the Election Day and implemented in a very tight timeframe, increasing pressure on electoral bodies and generating uncertainty among candidates and citizens. Despite some positive changes, the Congress expresses its concern about the overly burdensome registration requirements for independent candidates compared to the candidates from political parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Moldova/Transdniestria: Steps Forward, Stumbles Back
    In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2018, Baden-Baden 2019, pp. 193-204. William H. Hill Moldova/Transdniestria: Steps Forward, Stumbles Back Introduction The Moldova-Transdniestria political settlement process achieved substantial progress over the past year, beginning with significant agreements adopted and implemented in November 2017, and continuing steadily to the time of writing in September 2018. Several long-standing practical disputed issues in the so- called “package of eight” were resolved in November 2017, most notably the opening of the Gura Bîcului Bridge.1 This key span on the main route through Moldova from the Black Sea towards the Baltic region had been closed since it was damaged in the fighting in June 1992, even after its repair in 2001. A successful meeting of the 5+2 in late November was followed by a strong programmatic statement agreed at the December OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Vienna, welcoming the remarkable progress achieved and confirm- ing support of all participating States for the “small-steps” approach adopted by the OSCE under recent Chairmanships. The Italian 2018 OSCE Chairman- ship continued along the same line, appointing former Foreign Minister Franco Frattini as Special Representative. Sufficient progress was achieved to hold a formal 5+2 session in late May. The settlement process continued with a high level of activity through the summer, with especially frequent, active contact between Chişinău and Tiraspol. As Special Representative Frattini visited the region in September 2018, most points in the “package of eight” had been agreed and implemented, and participants were examining how and where this remarkable progress in the settlement process might be extended.
    [Show full text]
  • Moldova Parliamentary Elections, 30 November
    ELECTION OBSERVATION DELEGATION TO THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (30 November 2014) Report by Igor ŠOLTES, Chair of the Delegation Annexes: A - List of Participants and Programme B - EP Delegation press statement C - Preliminary Findings and Conclusions Introduction On 18 September 2014, the Conference of Presidents authorised the sending of an Election Observation Delegation, composed of 7 Members, to observe the parliamentary elections in Moldova, scheduled for 30 November 2014. The participation of one of the members was canceled in last moment. Due to the impossibility to obtain a new accreditation for a replacing member, because of closed deadline for registration, the delegation was composed only of 6 members of the European Parliament. They represented five different EU countries and five different political groups according to the rotating d'Hondt system. The delegation included: Igor ŠOLTES (Head of delegation, Slovenia, Greens/EFA), Alberto CIRIO (Italy, EPP), Andi CRISTEA (Romania, S&D), Soraya POST (Sweden, S&D), Kristina WINBERG (Sweden, EFDD) and Konstantinos PAPADAKIS (Greece, NI). The Delegation conducted its activities in Moldova between 27 November and 2 December 2014. Following the usual practice in the OSCE area, the EP Delegation was integrated in the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) organised by the ODIHR, and cooperated together with the Parliamentary Assemblies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe present on the ground. According to the preliminary findings and conclusions, which were as well endorsed by the European Parliament, the elections in Moldova were well administrated offering a wide choice of political alternatives, with an election campaign influenced by geo-political aspirations and marked by the late de-registration of one electoral contestants.
    [Show full text]
  • Moldova, Early Parliamentary Elections, 11 July 2021
    INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION Republic of Moldova, Early Parliamentary Elections, 11 July 2021 STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS The 11 July early parliamentary elections were well administered, competitive and fundamental freedoms were largely respected. While lower-level commissions enjoyed trust, key decisions of the Central Election Commission brought into question its impartiality. Candidates had ample opportunities to campaign and voters were provided a wide range of alternatives. The lack of effective campaign finance oversight left potential breaches unaddressed. Numerous televised debates allowed voters to be informed of contestants’ policies, but the majority of monitored news outlets displayed bias. The legal framework does not adequately regulate electoral dispute resolution, and the handling of electoral complaints further highlighted the importance of strengthening judicial independence. Election day was calm, transparent and the process was assessed overwhelmingly positively despite isolated cases of overcrowding and non- adherence to procedures. The legal framework is generally conducive for the conduct of democratic elections. The parliament’s 101 members were elected under a proportional representation system, which was reintroduced more than one year prior to its application and following an inclusive consultation process, in line with international good practice. Some key aspects of the electoral framework were also revised, including the lowering of thresholds for parties and blocs and strengthening the gender quota for candidate lists by introducing a placement requirement, in line with previous ODIHR and the Venice Commission recommendations. While some previous ODIHR and Venice Commission’s recommendations were addressed in recent amendments, further improvements are needed in particular to the legal framework on the complaints and appeals process and campaign finance oversight.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter on Foreign Policy and European Integration Issues of the Republic of Moldova
    Foreign Policy Association together with Friedrich- Ebert-Stiftung offer you a newsletter on foreign policy and European integration issues of the Republic of Moldova. The newsletter is part of the “Foreign Policy Dialogue” joint Project. NEWSLETTER MONTHLY BULLETIN JULY 2019 NR.7 (161) Synthesis and Foreign Policy Debates The newsletter is developed by Sorina Ştefârţă, editor-coordinator TOPICS OF THE EDITION: 1. Ion Sturza, businessman, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova: “The new Government should communicate rather internally, and instead of Brussels - go to Comrat or Otaci” 2. Editorial by Marc Behrendt and Gina S. Lentine:“Moldova’s crisis offers a chance to reform a captured state” 3. Iulian Rusu, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for European Policies and Reforms:“In a politically subjugated system, there will always be a “better” offer” 4. Expert Opinion. Dionis Cenușa: “Release of the European assistance for Moldova - with or without conditionality?” News in Brief The European Commission announced on July 23 that it resumed budget support to the The stormy summer of 2019: is it or Republic of Moldova, allocating EUR 14.54 million to support the implementation of the EU- Moldova Free Trade Area, education and vocational training programmes, and the Action Plan for the liberalization of the visa regime. According to a statement issued by Brussels, the payments were resumed because the new is it not for the change to happen? Government made a number of important decisions, which prove that the conditions for the
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom House, Its Academic Advisers, and the Author(S) of This Report
    Moldova By Victor Gotișan Capital: Chisinau Population: 3.5 Million GNI/capita, PPP: $5,670 Source: World Bank World Development Indicators. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 National Democratic 5.75 6.00 5.75 5.75 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.75 5.75 5.75 Governance Electoral Process 4.00 4.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Civil Society 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 Independent Media 5.75 5.75 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Local Democratic 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.50 5.50 5.50 Governance Judicial Framework 4.50 4.75 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.75 4.75 4.75 5.00 5.00 and Independence Corruption 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.75 5.75 5.75 6.00 6.00 6.00 Democracy Score 5.07 5.14 4.96 4.89 4.82 4.86 4.86 4.89 4.93 4.93 NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. If consensus cannot be reached, Freedom House is responsible for the final ratings. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest.
    [Show full text]