In its assessment of the law on combating electoral corruption, the Venice Commission sharply criticized the legislation, yet the authorities acted as if the criticism did not exist.
Experts of the Venice Commission noted that the provisions of the law undermine democracy and create risks of political persecution. The wording of the law is so vague that prosecutors could accuse anyone of extremism for criticizing the authorities.
In its opinion, the Venice Commission called on Chișinău to revise the law, warning that it undermines citizens’ trust in Moldovan democracy.
And what did the authorities do? Did they follow the recommendations? Not at all. Instead, Igor Grosu is openly misrepresenting the conclusions and trying to present black as white.
The Speaker of Parliament, Igor Grosu, wrote on social media that “the amendments adopted by parliament were necessary to combat corruption in elections, pursued the legitimate goal of protecting free and fair elections, and complied with European standards.” Needless to say, none of these claims appeared in the opinion of the Venice Commission.
