Pivot to Russia? The New Presidents of Bulgaria and Moldova
2016 is something Germans would call a “Superwahljahr” – an extraordinary election year. Most eyes were on the Presidential elections in the United States, and are now turned already towards the French primaries and the running up towards the German federal elections next autumn. However, Europe also saw other presidential elections happening: in Bulgaria and Moldova, and also Austria’s presidential elections are still to be taking place in the December of this year of elections.
Both Bulgaria and Moldova elected presidents, who are said to favour closer ties with Russia. While Bulgaria is a member of the European Union and NATO, Moldova on the other hand is neither and characterised by its status as poorest country in Europe and by the protracted conflict in the breakaway region of Transnistria, which has been going on for more than 20 years. Although both countries, just as the majority of Central and Eastern European countries, have been orientating themselves towards the West ever since the Soviet Union dissolved 25 years ago, interest in a working relationship with Russia has been remaining in both countries and their societies, mainly due to economic reasons as Russia represents one of the main viable outlets for Bulgarian and Moldovan products.
Due to the political developments of the recent years, including the imposed sanctions by members of the European Union following the annexation of Crimea as well as the Russian import sanctions as a following reaction, economies in both countries have been suffering. Moldova cannot export, which hurts its booming wine industry the most. Bulgaria’s economy, anyway characterised by slower development compared to its neighbours, has stagnated.
Furthermore, the last two decades haven’t brought the expected change that the societies of both countries had hoped for since reaching independence, and – in Bulgaria’s case – since joining the European Union. Now, both countries penalised the governments, who had been in power since then – in Moldova’s case one that has been advocating for closer ties with Brussels – by voting for candidates, which seemed to be different. Voting someone else into power increased chances of change. It is important to note, however, as The New York Times rightly underlines, that the election outcomes in both countries “were less an endorsement of Mr. Putin’s rule than a reflection of economic and geographic ties.”
Additionally, the importance of national interests becomes apparent: As Alice Greschkow argues, the Bulgarian society was overwhelmed with the consequences of the refugee crisis. While the country suffers from poor living standards and lacking development, the financial support of the European Union in handling the housing of refugees over the last year was met with envy and frustration. While many Bulgarians were left sitting in the dark during the energy crisis in 2013 with the government only demonstrating its inability to handle the situation, the majority of Bulgarians saw it with frustration how “easily” the Union supported the refugees in the country.
Electing Radev, Greschkow sees as a result of “ruthless neoliberal policies, lack of support by the European partners and incredibly poor domestic institutions in politics and administration”. Simply motivated by the disappointment and the inability of the government to fulfil basic social needs. “Social envy and xenophobia go hand in hand in this case”, Greschkow also finds.
Fact is, the tone is set to change in Bulgaria. Former president Plevnielev criticised Russia sharply last year, stating it would be “a nationalist, aggressive state ruled by a president who sees Europe as an opponent, not a partner”.
The country, which is almost 100% dependent on Russian gas, needs to find a way to tackle the corruption and the stagnation of economic development. A poll in 2014 showed 22% of the surveyed participants supported joining the Eurasian Union; not a majority, however, still a significant number of people who assume they would benefit more than from the common market within the EU. While it is unlikely for Bulgaria to leave the European Union (An Alpha Research poll last spring showed 70% preferring Brussels over Moscow), new president-elect Radev has announced that “being pro-European did not mean being anti-Russian”.
Similar tones can be heard from the winner of the recent presidential elections in Moldova. The first time since 1997, the people were able to directly vote for the president themselves, with the first round sending socialist Igor Dodon and the pro-European candidate Maia Sandu into the second round, which the former then won. Dodon campaigned on a strong fight of corruption and was advocating for a strategic partnership with Russia. Similar to the motivation in Bulgaria, a crucial criterion was the anger over extensive corruption: In 2014, the year the country signed the association agreement with the EU, $1 billion disappeared and have since not been tracked. Political and economic decision power has been firmly controlled by oligarchs; the president-elect promised to take the corruption and the people connected to it by the horns.
However, soon after the result, reports on irregularities appeared, and defeated Sandu announced she would challenge the result in the constitutional court.
While many worry about the intention of the newly elected president, who already announced he would dismiss the current Minister of Defence, as he sees him as too-pro-NATO and not enough patriotic, some sources such as BNE Intellinews and The Economist have argued that the presidents in both countries are less pro-Russian than advertised. In Moldova, for example, there was less openly voiced support and meddling in the elections from the Russian side than in the parliamentary elections two years ago.
The presidents’ supporters seem to be expecting Russia to subsidise and strengthen the economies. Victoria Bucataru from the Foreign Policy Association in Moldova is convinced that the new president’s positive statements towards Russia is “a way of pressuring the West to keep up the flow of funds, while avoiding any serious reform.”
In one of his latest statements, Dodon announced he would want the ties with the EU to remain intact but at the same time sees a need for talks with Russia to discuss the end of the ban of Moldovan products. Furthermore, he argued that membership in the Eurasian Union would bring more benefits than the EU market.
One major requirement for Moldova to join the EU anyway would be a satisfying solution to the Transnistrian issue. Dodon wants to hold referenda in both Moldova proper and the breakaway region, indirectly pushing for a federalisation of the country.
So, a pivot to Russia? Not completely, however, motivated by national interests both countries seek possibilities of improving their situations in a more “simple” way, for instance in Moldova’s case without facing requirements of rule of law or human rights issues, which membership in the EU would ask for, membership in the Eurasian Union however not so much. And it should also be pretty clear that Bulgaria is not leaving the institutions of EU and NATO.
Photo credit: Flickr User Wittco.gmbh
