Mass voter bribery and other election surprises in Moldova – an international observer perspective

On 20 October, a historic vote took place in Moldova. We have have published an article about the ambiguity and threats posed by the results, as well as a report on the regions forming the core of Kremlin support in Moldova.

Both the presidential elections and the constitutional referendum on European integration were closely monitored by specialised Ukrainian organisations, including a representative from the CHESNO Movement.

International observer Viktoriia Maksymova has shared some observations in her column – Campaigning that never happened: How Sandu’s campaign lost to Russian manipulations.

According to her, the final days of the election campaign in Moldovan cities were surprisingly quiet.

Advertisement:

“There was no active campaigning, not only in the presidential race but also regarding the crucial referendum on whether Moldova should move toward joining the European Union,” the columnist notes.

This does not mean tough there were no violations, the observer notes.

She points out that in this election, Russia managed to organise an almost unprecedented network for bribing voters.

“In early October, the police reported on 130,000 voters whom were promised rewards for supporting pro-Russian options in both the elections and the referendum. Now, President Sandu names 300,000. This network is coordinated through Telegram channels. Payments were made by participants to special accounts at the sanctioned Russian Promsvyazbank, which also serves the Russian military budget,” writes Viktoriia Maksymova.

She highlights that such a large number of votes can significantly distort the electoral landscape, considering that just over 1.5 million Moldovans voted in total.

The referendum was Russia’s main target, the columnist believes.

She points out that Moldova prepared for Russian manipulations and passed a new electoral code, some provisions of which were specifically designed to counteract traditional Russian methods of undermining democratic processes.

“However, it was not entirely possible to solve the problem of organised transportation of bribed voters, locals mentioned that residents of Transnistria were allegedly promised compensation for taxi rides,” the observer reports.

Another consequence of the restrictions on campaign activity, in her view, was that they pushed parties to rely more on door-to-door campaigns. This grassroots campaigning is not prohibited, but it is harder to control, both in terms of paying campaigners and in the context of potential voter bribery.

Pro-Russian forces took full advantage of this, claims Viktoriia Maksymova.

She also highlights the issue of language, which remains a powerful lever of Russian influence.

In conclusion, as the CHESNO representative summarises, the quiet and supposedly “civilised” pro-European party campaigns could not compete with the multimillion-dollar Russian investments in vote-buying.

“So it’s no surprise that the referendum for EU integration was saved only by the Moldovan diaspora, which Russian influence couldn’t reach,” the columnist concludes.

The results of the first round of the presidential elections were disappointing for the current president, Maia Sandu, and in the referendum, the difference between the “yes” and “no” options was less than one percent – 50.4% versus 49.6%.

Maksymova is confident that countering Russian hybrid influence will only be possible by introducing stricter countermeasures, justified by the evidence of such blatant election interference.