CIVICUS discusses Moldova’s recent election with Nicolae Panfil, Programme Director of Promo-LEX and head of its election observation mission. Promo-LEX is a Moldovan civil society organisation that works for democracy and human rights.

The pro-European Union (EU) Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) retained power in Moldova’s 28 September parliamentary election. The campaign was marked by disinformation, polarisation and Russian interference through propaganda, cyberattacks and illicit funding, with fugitive oligarch Ilan Shor accused of running an operation to pay people for pro-Russia social media posts to influence voters. Amid these challenges, the election was well-administered and civil society played an essential role in protecting its integrity. By rejecting the prospect of closer relations with Russia, most voters have shown they value their democratic freedoms.

What shaped voter sentiment?

The election was held in a deeply polarised environment, dominated by debates over Moldova’s geopolitical direction: whether to deepen alignment with the EU or move closer to Russia. The campaign was intense, online and offline, and featured multiple instances of external interference consistent with hybrid warfare tactics. Information manipulation, misuse of administrative resources, illegal financing, vote buying, third-party campaigning, hate speech, smear tactics and the involvement of religious groups all contributed to a tense political climate.

Security and economic anxieties, particularly an ongoing energy crisis linked to the conflict in Ukraine, were heavily exploited in campaign messaging to mobilise voters through fear-based narratives. To try to shift the debate towards social and economic issues, some candidates, particularly from the Patriotic Bloc, an opposition alliance advocating closer ties with Russia, pledged to secure cheaper gas supplies.

PAS also framed energy as a security and independence issue, focusing on diversifying away from Russia, while authorities constantly spoke about the compensation mechanism for electricity bills and repeatedly assured people that sufficient energy resources had been secured for the winter months. Thus the geopolitical narrative remained dominant.

How did Russia interfere with the election, and how did institutions respond?

Russian interference built upon tactics used during last year’s presidential election, but proved far more sophisticated. Corrupt practices such as vote buying and illegal financing persisted, but became more organised and harder to detect. Operations relied heavily on opaque financial transfers, undeclared online advertising and covert mobilisation through intermediaries and encrypted applications. Russia financed inauthentic social media networks to spread disinformation on a massive scale, while also funding paid protests and covert political funding schemes.

However, Moldovan institutions proved far better prepared than they had been in 2024. The Central Election Commission, police, prosecution and intelligence services demonstrated improved coordination and acted more swiftly against emerging threats. Their timely interventions successfully disrupted several interference schemes, limiting their overall impact.

Despite this progress, the sheer scale of external manipulation revealed persistent vulnerabilities in transparency and oversight mechanisms. As Moldova continues its path towards EU membership, it remains critical to address these weaknesses and further strengthen institutional defences against hybrid warfare.

What did the results reveal about Moldova’s direction?

The election results exposed profound social and geopolitical divisions while simultaneously demonstrating Moldova’s democratic resilience. High voter turnout, strong diaspora participation and effective electoral administration demonstrated that Moldova’s democracy continues to function effectively despite facing enormous pressure.

The diaspora played a crucial role once again, with 281,170 Moldovans voting from abroad, fewer than in the second round of the 2024 presidential election but more than in the first. The number of polling stations abroad increased by around 30 per cent compared to 2024, and postal voting was introduced in 10 countries, reflecting sustained efforts to ensure all Moldovan voices are heard.

PAS’s victory represents a clear public mandate for European integration, including to advance judicial reforms, strengthen anti-corruption mechanisms and align the rule of law with EU standards. Yet this path forward is far from straightforward.

The new government faces a formidable challenge: maintaining reform momentum while addressing deep socioeconomic inequalities and bridging a divided society. Success will depend entirely on its ability to govern transparently and inclusively. Only through genuinely inclusive governance can Moldova sustain public confidence in its democratic trajectory and European future.

What must Moldova do to strengthen its defences against hybrid threats?

Tangible action across multiple fronts is needed to build resilience against hybrid warfare. Moldova must tighten oversight of political party financing, particularly for online campaigning and third-party actors. Online platforms require stronger regulation, along with robust partnerships to counter manipulative content.

Cyberdefence capabilities need urgent expansion through closer cooperation among the Central Election Commission, law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the judiciary. Authorities must also consistently enforce sanctions for the misuse of administrative resources.

Equally vital are civic education and media literacy initiatives that equip people to critically assess information and resist manipulation. Ensuring full voting rights for all Moldovans – including the diaspora, people with disabilities and voters in Transnistria, a Russian-backed breakaway territory in eastern Moldova – will strengthen democratic legitimacy and resilience against external pressure.