{"id":11812,"date":"2025-10-03T13:39:00","date_gmt":"2025-10-03T12:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/?p=11812"},"modified":"2025-11-06T14:04:17","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T13:04:17","slug":"no-in-moldova-the-pro-russian-parties-did-not-win-49-8-of-the-vote","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/2025\/10\/03\/no-in-moldova-the-pro-russian-parties-did-not-win-49-8-of-the-vote\/","title":{"rendered":"No, in Moldova the Pro-Russian Parties Did Not Win 49.8% of the Vote"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Original article<\/em><\/a> (in Serbian) was published on 2\/10\/2025; Author: Teodora Koledin<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A few days ago, parliamentary elections were held in Moldova, where the pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) of the current president, Maja Sandu, won <\/a>with 50.2% of the votes. The Serbian tabloid Informer<\/a>, in its print edition of September 30, reported that Moldova is facing a \u201cbrutal division\u201d in society because the \u201cpro-Russian opposition\u201d allegedly won 49.8% of the votes. However, the election results cannot be interpreted this way. Informer added up all the votes that did not go to the pro-European PAS and labeled them as votes for the pro-Russian opposition, even though several parties that the tabloid grouped under the \u201cpro-Russian opposition\u201d banner actually support EU integration in their political programs.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The political option that received the second-highest number of votes (24.2%) in the Moldovan elections was the Patriotic Bloc<\/em>, which \u2013 among other things \u2013 advocates <\/a>for \u201crestoring mutually beneficial relations and strengthening the strategic partnership with the Russian Federation.\u201d Therefore, it can unequivocally be described as pro-Russian. However, this is not the case with the other three parties that entered parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The political bloc Alternative<\/em>, which came in third with 7.96% of the votes, declares in its program that it supports European integration. \u201cWe believe that European integration is the most important constructive challenge for Moldova \u2013 the path toward sustainable development and national unity,\u201d the bloc states on its website<\/a>. Our Party<\/em>, which came in fourth with 6.20% of the votes, describes <\/a>itself as pro-Moldovan, which for them means that they \u201ccannot be anti-European, anti-Russian, anti-Romanian, anti-American, or anti-Chinese politicians.\u201d The Democracy at Home Party<\/em> (PPDA), which came in fifth with 5.62%, states in its program <\/a>that it \u201cadvocates for the integration of the Republic of Moldova into the European Union.\u201d However, all three of these parties have previously been accused of maintaining ties with Russia (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Erizanu: Moldovans have shown they want to join the EU<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To clarify whether Informer<\/em>\u2019s claims can be considered true, we spoke with Moldovan journalist Paula Erizanu<\/strong>, who writes about Eastern European affairs for the BBC, The Guardian<\/em>, and the Financial Times<\/em>. She explained that while it is true that some parties have hidden pro-Russian tendencies, their electoral strategies actually show that Moldovan voters are more oriented toward Europe than toward Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe fact that Alternative<\/em> pretends to be pro-European shows that Moldovans have become much more pro-European than they used to be,\u201d Erizanu explained. She added that several opposition lists \u2014 such as those of Olesea Stamate (0.33%), PL (0.10%), \u00cempreun\u0103 (0.32%), ALDE (0.23%), MRM (0.64%), and LOC (0.39%) \u2014 are genuinely pro-European. Speaking about the Democracy at Home<\/em> party (PPDA), Erizanu noted that this party also presents itself as pro-European but that there are \u201cserious question marks\u201d regarding its connections, actions, and statements. Ultimately, Erizanu concluded that the very fact that certain parties must pretend to support EU accession \u201cshows what Moldovans want that\u201d and that \u201cnot all voters of these parties could have known which side those parties were actually on.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, Informer<\/em>\u2019s calculation is certainly incorrect. Even if we were to combine the votes of the nominally pro-European parties that entered parliament with those of the Patriotic Bloc<\/em> and label them all as the \u201cpro-Russian opposition,\u201d the total would still not reach 49.8% as the Serbian tabloid claimed, but rather around 44%. The assessment that Moldova is facing a \u201cbrutal division\u201d in society after the elections is even less accurate. If elections are taken as a measure of social divisions, as Informer<\/em> suggests, the results in Moldova show that citizens voted significantly more for pro-European political parties. For this reason, some of the \u201cRussian players\u201d had to put on \u201cEuropean clothes\u201d for the elections.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Original article (in Serbian) was published on 2\/10\/2025; Author: Teodora Koledin A few days ago, parliamentary elections were held in Moldova, where the pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) of the current president, Maja Sandu, won with 50.2% of the votes. The Serbian tabloid Informer, in its print edition of September 30, reported that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":11813,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[316],"tags":[81,656],"class_list":["post-11812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-checks","tag-elections","tag-moldova"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11812","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11812"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11812\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11814,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11812\/revisions\/11814"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}