New Elections. Nothing New

New local elections. A bitter and disgusting taste. An old taste. I’m talking about the ‘guard dog’. Rather than bark, it fawns.
The elections which took place on 20 May are strikingly similar to the paralyzing snowfalls in Russia’s Northern cities during wintertime and the devastating hailstorms in Moldova’s districts during summertime, in that no one’s expecting them. Everyone knows they’re coming, but no one’s expecting them. And they do come. And when they come, everyone starts measuring the height of the snow and the diameter of the hailstones.

We’ve had local elections in the past. But we’ve never had elections like these. Right now we have to elect two mayors in two cities - Chisinau and Balti, where the vast majority of media outlets is located. And therein lies the difference! Those who oversee the election procedure cannot ignore this difference if they value the common effort of informing the electorate.  
It’s well-known that the CEC is the main elections overseeing institution. The secondary overseeing institution is the BCC. The laws of mathematics state that separate efforts combined together should produce a higher value. Let it be known that in Moldova elections beat out math.

Formal clarifications

According to Article 70 of the Electoral Code, the media shall respect the CEC-approved Regulation on the Coverage of the Electoral Campaign for Parliamentary elections, general local elections and national and local referendums. Note:

The CEC did not adopt a Regulation on the Coverage of the Electoral Campaign for the new local elections held on 20 May. The Commission put these elections on the same level as that of past elections in localities which don’t even have the tiniest newspaper publisher, let alone a radio or TV station.
The BCC, in its traditional fashion, adopted the Concept on the Coverage of the Electoral Campaign without taking into account the specific nuances of these latest local elections. The letter of the law doesn’t expressly oblige it to do so, while the spirit of the law doesn’t currently have a say in the situation.
Both the CEC and the BCC are legally empowered to adopt legal acts. Acts that would ensure an adequate level of the electorate’s awareness were not adopted.  
The law does not oblige the BCC to make the list of local broadcasters public. The law also doesn’t forbid it from doing so.
A law, even a flawed one, can produce desired results when applied in good faith. ‘Good faith’ is not an abstract notion. The finest of society have a specific measuring stick for good faith - the triple test. According to it, an action is considered to be done in good faith if it provides definitive answers to the following three questions:
1. Is it stipulated by the law?
2. Does it pursue a legitimate purpose?
3. Does it serve to strengthen democracy?

Clarifications with questions

The CEC did not take into account the specific nature of the new local elections which took place on 20 May. Why?

The BCC adopted the Concept on the Coverage of New Local Elections, referencing a non-existent article, 64(10), in the Electoral Code. Why? And what legal power does a norm based on a non-existent article have?

The BCC adopted declarations on the editorial policy of a number of broadcasters without a proper analysis. Why?
The BCC accepted the decision of several major television channels, both general and news ones (‘TV Prime’, ‘Publika TV’, ‘TV Canal 2’, ‘TV Canal 3’), not to report on the new local elections on 20 May. But should the BCC, who is the guarantor of the public interest, be able to allow these channels not to provide coverage for a democratic exercise of obvious public interest?! It would’ve made sense for thematic channels, such as ‘Gurinel TV’ or ‘Fishing and Hunting’, to announce that they wouldn’t get involved in the elections. But in the case of others...
Ultimately, TV channels which announced that they would not cover the elections, covered them nonetheless, which is how it should be. However, these channels showed favor for one of the election candidates (Silvia Radu) and disfavor for another candidate (Andrei Nastase), which isn’t normal. How does the BCC qualify this situation? Does it feel somewhat double-crossed?
Starting with 8 May, the BCC had been bombarded, both from the inside (by a BCC member) and from the outside (by the civil society and political figures), with requests of reigning in TV channels that set out to do one thing during the elections, but were doing something totally different. The BCC reacted. On 22 May. And issued public warnings. After the elections had already taken place. Why? Why is a candidate, who is suspected of fraud, ‘allowed’ to go through three courts right up until the election day, while the TV channels in question aren’t even brought before the BCC?
The results of the first round of elections are now known. They are not exactly the results which politically charged channels fought for, either openly or covertly. It is not the TV channels’ job to take the candidates’ bread from them. But now since they’ve done it, what does the electorate have to say? That they tried, unsuccessfully, to influence, misinform and manipulate it? But does the electorate even have someone to tell this to?
Many questions still remain. With no answers. And no commentary whatsoever.

Final clarifications

The new local elections, though a premiere, have politically employed a good part of the media, as was the case during the previous elections regardless of their type.
Politically charged media has abandoned its natural cause, probably thinking that a party-provided money bill in the pocket is better than democracy in the country.
Election overseeing institutions have failed once again in their attempt (if there ever was one) to ensure an adequate level of the electorate’s awareness using the entire spectrum of the media.

Final recommendations

Though the triple test didn’t have its roots in Moldova, maybe we can borrow it and take it for a speed run. Without all the media hubbub, as it’s not a smart traffic light or even an electric bus. Everyone involved in the election process, whether with large or not so large responsibilities, should be taken through the sieve of this test as if through an exam of conscience.
_________________________________
The article was published within the Advocacy Campaigns Aimed at Improving Transparency of Media Ownership, Access to Information and promotion of EU values  and integration project, implemented by the IJC, which is, in its turn, part of the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society project, implemented by FHI 360.
This article is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content are the responsibility of author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.