CIVICUS discusses Moldova’s referendum on its plans to join the European Union (EU) with Ion Manole, human rights defender and Executive Director of Promo-LEX, a civil society organisation working for democracy and human rights in Moldova.

On 20 October, alongside the first round of the presidential election, Moldovans voted in a referendum to change the constitution to include a commitment to join the EU. Just over half the voters backed the proposal. The campaign was marred by disinformation and multiple allegations of Russian interference. In the presidential race, incumbent Maia Sandu won the run-off election on 3 November with 55 per cent, defeating pro-Russia challenger Alexandr Stoianoglo. The results mean Moldova will strengthen its ties with the EU rather than Russia, but they also show a divided society where ongoing Russian influencing attempts can be expected.

Why was the EU referendum result so close?

The results of the referendum and the presidential runoff show a deeply divided society. It was the Moldovan diaspora that made the difference. There’s an estimated one million Moldovans living and working in EU countries, many of whom have acquired EU citizenship. They make up a significant electorate.

Although disappointing, the results were not entirely unexpected. Foreign interference was real: Russia began testing new political tactics in Moldova over a year ago, starting with regional elections in Gagauzia, an area where people more strongly support Russia.

But the results weren’t just down to the large amounts of money spent by Russia and its disinformation and propaganda. There were also domestic factors at play, and Moldova’s central authorities share some of the blame. They could have done more to protect our democracy, but they didn’t respond strongly or effectively enough.

Moldova hasn’t successfully integrated its national minorities, many of whom still rely on Russian media and education. This has left them vulnerable to disinformation and manipulation from Russia, which has been influencing public opinion for some time.

How did civil society work against disinformation?

Civil society did a lot of work to encourage people to think critically and vote wisely, but the results weren’t always as good as we had hoped. Promo-LEX, for example, organised debates and created educational videos to help voters make informed decisions. We also deployed over 1,000 accredited observers to monitor the election closely. But we faced a large-scale, expensive and sophisticated disinformation campaign. Our efforts clearly were not enough.

The Centre for Strategic Communication and Countering Disinformation, a state body set up by parliament on the initiative of President Sandu in 2023, hasn’t been so effective either. Despite all these efforts, Moldovan society remains deeply divided.

How would you assess the state of Moldovan democracy?

Democracy in Moldova is relatively strong, but it requires constant vigilance to protect the equal rights of citizens. There’s a need to fight corruption, uphold the rule of law, communicate effectively, educate people and cultivate public trust in institutions. Otherwise people are more likely to believe disinformation.

Looking ahead, the challenges we face will be even more complex. To keep Moldova’s democracy strong, our leaders must be transparent, professional and clear in their communication. Civil society must remain vigilant, active and involved in the decision-making process to ensure democratic standards are upheld.