MP Vasile Kostyuk has denied statements made by his party colleague Aleksandr Vershinin claiming that representatives of the Democracy at Home party would take part in consultations with the president on the appointment of a new prime minister.
While opposition parties such as the Party of Socialists (PSRM), the Communist Party, PROM, and MAN have publicly refused to participate in consultations with the president—calling them a “farce” and a “hypocritical performance”—the Democracy at Home party has found itself in the middle of a public internal dispute.
It appears that members of the party interpreted the presidential invitation differently. During a television talk show, Aleksandr Vershinin stated that the party would attend, emphasizing its respect for state institutions:
“Regardless of everything, we respect the state, the institution of the presidency, the constitutional procedure, and the Constitution. Democracy at Home leader Vasile Kostyuk announced that we are going to the Presidential Administration.”
However, party leader Vasile Kostyuk later contradicted that statement in another interview, joking that while they might “walk up the stairs of the Presidential Administration,” they would not actually enter because “the place is already packed with journalists.”
Then, on July 7, Kostyuk changed his position again. According to his latest public statements, his party had never been invited to the consultations in the first place.
“Maia Sandu and the Presidential Administration did not invite us to the consultations. I’ll reveal a big secret: Maia Sandu already has a candidate for prime minister, but she doesn’t have a parliamentary majority. Until she convinces all 55 MPs to support her nominee, there is no logic or purpose in holding consultations,” Kostyuk said.
He also urged the president to be courageous and call early parliamentary elections if no political consensus can be reached.
So who should be believed—Vershinin, who claimed he was speaking on behalf of the party leader, or Kostyuk himself, who now says his words were misunderstood? Or was the party simply not invited and is now trying to save face? It appears that Democracy at Home is attempting to balance two conflicting goals: demonstrating respect for state institutions while maintaining solidarity with the opposition.
The controversy also raises broader questions about how the Presidential Administration decides which political parties are invited to consultations. MAN and PROM declined to participate, and apparently no effort was made to persuade them otherwise. Meanwhile, according to journalists from Channel Five, one of the country’s largest parliamentary parties—the Communist Party—was not invited at all. The Socialist Party was also excluded. As for Democracy at Home, the situation remains unclear, and Kostyuk may yet present another version of events.
At the same time, the criteria used by the Presidential Administration to determine who is invited to discuss the appointment of a new prime minister remain unknown. There has been no public explanation of where these rules can be found or under which legal act they are established.
The overall impression is that the administration’s main guiding principle is simply political convenience.
