Moldova toxic partner claim follows Venice Commission visit
Victoria Furtună, leader of the Great Moldova party, said the country’s reputation on the international stage has sharply deteriorated.
According to her, Moldova is increasingly being cited in Europe not as an example of reform, but as a case of democratic backsliding.
Her criticism followed the arrival in Chișinău of a delegation from the Venice Commission. The rapporteurs came to Moldova to prepare an opinion on amendments to legislation governing vetting the assessment of judges and prosecutors. The changes, adopted by the parliamentary majority, concern the appointment of members of evaluation commissions. The opposition argues that the amendments politicise the justice process.
Furtună said international reports were already recording worrying trends. She cited Freedom House data showing Moldova with a score of 60 out of 100 and the status of a “partly free” country. She said the country’s election score had declined because of the use of administrative resources and a lack of transparency.
“Moldova is no longer called an ‘example of reforms’ in Europe. It is increasingly cited as an example of problems with democracy,” Furtună said.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit index, she said, the country in 2025 moved from the category of a “flawed democracy” to that of a “hybrid regime”. In Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, Moldovaranks around 80th.
Furtună stressed that these issues are no longer being discussed only inside the country. They are being analysed in European institutions, at conferences and among experts.
“There is an unwritten rule in the European Union: first they turn a blind eye, then they start asking questions, and after that they keep their distance. Moldova has already passed the first stage,” she added.
Opposition alleges arbitrary decisions and political pressure
Other politicians echoed Furtună’s criticism.
Political analyst Corneliu Ciurea said the situation surrounding the elections in Orhei amounted to a “purge”. The Central Electoral Commission removed the candidate from the Democracy at Home party from the race, and then also excluded the representative of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova.
“We are witnessing arbitrariness, not any kind of lawful action. All candidates with a real chance of winning are being removed in order to give the PAS candidate an opportunity to win,” Ciurea said.
Commenting on the removal of the candidate in Orhei, Furtună called on the opposition to unite and raise the issue internationally.
According to her, the government in Moldova is already becoming toxic even for those who praise it in public. Behind the scenes and in closed conference rooms, however, Moldova is increasingly being treated as a negative example, she said.
Vasile Tarlev, an MP who took part in the meeting with the Venice Commission, criticised the way the legislative changes were adopted. Access for the press to those sessions was limited, with journalists given only 10 minutes for protocol filming.
“There was no dialogue and no consultation. Everything was adopted at cosmic speed on an extremely sensitive issue. This is clear politicisation and a humiliation of justice,” Tarlev said.
He also pointed to the lowering of the voting threshold for appointing members of vetting commissions from 61 to 51 votes. PSRM MP Pavel Voicu, who held a joint meeting with representatives of the Venice Commission, called the change “a dangerous precedent and an imbalance”.
Lawyer Igor Hlopețchi, representing the Great Moldova party, said the Constitutional Court was in no hurry to rule on their case. According to him, the authorities are trying, through a controlled Constitutional Court, to prevent Furtună’s party from taking part in local elections, despite recommendations from the Venice Commission in its favour.
Igor Grosu says criticism was expected
Parliament Speaker Igor Grosu, commenting on the Venice Commission visit and opposition criticism, said the authorities were open to dialogue. According to him, the amendments to vetting legislation are intended to speed up justice reform, not to exert political pressure.
Grosu also said criticism from the opposition was expected, but that the authorities would continue their course towards European integration despite temporary difficulties.
The opposition, however, insists that reform cannot be credible without broad consensus and respect for democratic procedures. The Venice Commission visit is an opportunity for Moldova to return to the right decision. Or, as Furtună sees it, an opportunity for Europe to see that Chișinău is moving further away from the standards it claims to uphold.
