On October 27, electoral debates took place. The candidate of the PAS, the current President of Moldova, Maia Sandu, and the candidate of the Socialists, former Attorney General of Moldova, Alexander Stoianoglo, faced each other at the Palace of the Republic, asking each other ten questions. NM reports on what the candidates discussed, who won the debate, and how it might influence voters.

What Sandu Said

Moldovan President Maia Sandu labeled Stoianoglo a “Trojan horse,” emphasizing that voters must choose between stability and instability, development and stagnation. In her interventions, the President focused on Stoianoglo’s track record as Attorney General, foreign policy, and Stoianoglo’s alleged ties to the fugitive oligarch Ilan Shor, the businessman sought by law enforcement in Moldova, Vyacheslav Platon, and the leader of the Socialist Party Igor Dodon.

While discussing foreign policy, Sandu asked Stoianoglo how he envisioned building relations with Ukraine. Stoianoglo replied that he would improve relations with Ukraine, as they currently rest solely on “militaristic declarations.” “Do you really believe what you say? In Kyiv, they know you are a man of the Kremlin,” Sandu retorted.

Another question concerned foreign policy. “Tell me, between us Romanians: do you really think that Romania will support a man from Moscow and continue making the same investments in Moldova as it has done until now?” Thus, Sandu responded to Stoianoglo’s observation about the absence of major projects with Romania.

Regarding foreign policy, Stoianoglo reiterated that he would engage in dialogue with all partner countries and denied any connections with Shor and Platon. Sandu responded that “these people openly supported him,” and everyone sees it, but he alone denies it.

Sandu also criticized Stoianoglo for his ineffectiveness as Attorney General. In response, Stoianoglo claimed that during his tenure as Attorney General, more criminal proceedings were initiated against those involved in the billion-dollar theft.

What Stoianoglo Said

Stoianoglo opened his remarks by proposing to sign a pact on the irreversibility of Moldova’s European path. Throughout the debates, he repeatedly stated that he was in favor of Euro-integration and even recalled his participation in the visa liberalization process with EU countries.

In his questions, Stoianoglo accused Sandu of failing to build anything in the country and claimed that during her presidency, Moldova lost 300,000 citizens. In response, Sandu stated that he was lying: projects are underway in every locality, such as sewage systems or aqueducts. Commenting on the accusation regarding citizen emigration, Sandu said the country is modernizing, even for those abroad who will return to Moldova.

Stoianoglo also posed a question in Russian concerning the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In the same question, he noted that he is a Romanian citizen. “What do you find valuable in Romania’s experience: the adoption of the Charter for Regional Languages or NATO membership?” Stoianoglo asked. Sandu replied that she would support the adoption of the Charter and reminded that Moldova is a neutral country. Stoianoglo emphasized that in Romania, thanks to the adoption of the Charter, the Hungarian language gained official status in several districts. “To protect Ukrainian, Russian, and Bulgarian languages, it is not necessary to be ‘the hand of Moscow’; it is enough just to be a consistent Romanian,” Stoianoglo added.

At the end of his remarks, he addressed Sandu, stating that he had sincerely believed in her good intentions four years ago at the beginning of her presidency and in her desire to change the country: “But you have not succeeded.”

What Experts Are Saying

Political science doctor Angela Kolatzky believes Sandu managed to take the initiative in the debates. “She has a base, she has something to respond to,” Kolatzky observed. At the same time, the expert thinks Stoianoglo’s “double standards,” often used by leftist (pro-Russian) parties, proved fatal for him. Their position is unstable and inconsistent, making it hard to defend. “They think one thing, cautiously take on other nationalities, say a second thing, and do another. That’s why it was difficult for Stoianoglo to respond to the same questions about his ties to pro-Kremlin Dodon and others,” Kolatzky explains.

Many viewers also noted that Sandu was more energetic, while her critics accused her of hysteria. Kolatzky does not consider Sandu’s approach in the debate to be hysterical. According to the expert, the candidate sought to take the initiative, and she succeeded. “One must not forget that debates are a game. For example, in football: a team that stays on defense throughout the match will have a hard time winning,” concluded the expert.

Former Moldovan representative to the United Nations and the Council of Europe, political analyst Alexei Tulbure, considers that Alexander Stoianoglo was not convincing in these debates, and many of his questions and answers echoed the position of “the people supporting him” (Stoianoglo was backed by the Socialists). “These formulations are outdated. For example, formulations regarding relations with Russia (while listing partner countries, Stoianoglo mentioned Russia). In the current situation, where Russia is a criminal country, maintaining economic relations with it is morally impossible,” explained the expert.

Political analyst Ian Lisnevski observed that both candidates focused more on attacking each other rather than discussing their own electoral programs. “In general, they simply continued the discourse they have had throughout the electoral campaign and spoke more about the past than the future. This did not resemble a classic debate in a democratic country,” the expert believes.

However, Lisnevski pointed out that despite the mutual attacks, the candidates did not resort to personal attacks. This is undoubtedly a positive sign for the political culture of Moldova.

And How Much Does It Matter?

Before the second round, the focus is on undecided voters. These are citizens who did not vote in the first round, as well as those who voted for other candidates. Alexei Tulbure believes that the debates can significantly influence the voter. “To win, Maia Sandu has three tasks: to mobilize even more the diaspora, to travel to the northern and southern regions of Moldova, and to perform well in the debates. With one of these tasks, she has succeeded,” said Tulbure.

Ian Lisnevski believes that the debates were aimed at mobilizing the stable electorate. “We didn’t learn anything new. Both candidates spoke for their classic voters, not for the undecided,” the expert observed.

Angela Kolatzky believes that the debates can only influence uncorrupted voters: “Those who have sold their vote already know for whom to vote.”

It is worth noting that despite the experts’ conviction in Sandu’s victory in the debates, a portion of the public opinion believes otherwise. The question remains open as to whether the President’s success in the debates can outweigh her negative popularity rating.