Save
Democracy

In December 2022, the government carried out a major crackdown on media channels across the country and revoked their licenses, subsequently shutting them down. In addition, on April 12, 2023, a new draft law on access to public information in Moldova was approved by the Moldovan government and sparked criticism from the country’s journalists and other members of the media. Media Azi, a local group acting in defense of press freedom, voiced the following concerns about the law: definition of ‘public information’ deemed to be too restrictive; introduction of exceptions limiting access to information; long delays responding to requests for information from journalists; lack of clear criteria regarding the form and nature of responses to requests for information; and absence of an effective mechanism for monitoring and implementing the law.

The lack of independence of the press in Moldova has, on several occasions, been pointed out by international organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe.

Moldova lost a ruling in 2009 by the European Court of Human Rights, which held that the Moldovan Broadcasting Law failed to guarantee political balance in the composition of the management and supervisory body of the Moldovan state-owned national radio and television broadcaster TeleRadio-Moldova, nor did it provide any protection against corruption.

In addition to the media turmoil, election violations have further marred Moldova's democratic processes. Notably, two days before the local elections in November 2023, the Commission for Emergency Situations, a body initially set up to manage crises such as the energy shortage stemming from the Ukraine conflict, overstepped its mandate by canceling the registration of 652 mayoral candidates and 8,874 local councilor candidates from the Chance Party. Legislative measures have been introduced to further restrict opposition activities, notably including the outright ban of the Shor party and legislation that bars its members from participating in elections for five years, actions that starkly violate Articles 8, 10, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This move, which was subsequently declared unconstitutional by Moldova's Constitutional Court in March 2024, was criticized by international observers including the OSCE/ODIHR and ENEMO monitoring missions, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Human Rights. In addition to the local developments, the U.S. State Department's Moldova 2023 report highlights ongoing human rights challenges in the country. The report underscores serious issues such as credible reports of torture and inhuman treatment by authorities, substantial problems with judicial independence, and serious corruption within the government.

Despite the ongoing government pressure, the judiciary has at times acted as a counterbalance to these authoritarian tendencies. A notable instance occurred in December 2023 when the Chisinau Court of Appeal made a significant ruling by annulling a decision that had previously banned the Chance Party and its candidates from participating in local elections. This decision came after the Chance Party challenged the legality of the ban, arguing that it violated fundamental human rights and the right to free elections. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, has underscored the significance of its decision to review the ban on the Shor Party, labeling it a potential "landmark case." This highlights the case's capacity to address critical issues relevant to both Moldova and the convention system. Given that a significant majority of applications to the ECHR are usually dismissed without detailed examination—95% in 2020 alone—the court's decision to review this case marks a critical step in evaluating and potentially rectifying alleged violations of fundamental human rights in Moldova.

This judicial decision was seen as a critical affirmation of the rule of law, underscoring the judiciary's independence and its essential role in safeguarding political freedoms against arbitrary governmental actions. This ruling highlighted the judiciary's role in checking government overreach and ensuring that electoral competitions remain open and fair.

Furthermore, this decision aligns with international concerns and criticisms from bodies like the Venice Commission and the OSCE, which have emphasized the need for Moldova to uphold democratic standards and ensure that all political parties can participate in the electoral process without undue hindrance. By upholding such legal standards, the judiciary reinforces Moldova's democratic framework, fostering a political environment where diverse viewpoints can compete equitably, which is essential for a healthy democracy.

The political narrative surrounding the opposition, especially the Shor party led by Ilan Shor, focuses on maintaining Moldova's neutrality, advocating ongoing trade with both European and Russian markets despite the geopolitical tensions. His stance and the actions against his party have stirred significant controversy, particularly considering the lack of substantiated evidence that Shor operates under the Kremlin's directives. Despite this, the government has pursued legal moves to sideline him from politics, which are still pending.