How we get from the Eurovision scandal to the union with the Republic of Moldova. What a strange provision, “probably the only one in the world”, the Constitution of Moldova contains

Even for the hysterical times we live in, the scandal related to the Moldovan jury's vote for Romania's Eurovision song seems exaggerated. The director of public television and radio from Chisinau had to resign because a seven-person jury, which theoretically he should not control, gave Alexandra Căpitănescu only 3 points, instead of 12.

• The vote for the artist from Romania turned overnight “into a lack of respect towards Romania”.
• If you're wondering what they have to do with each other, you're right: theoretically, nothing.
• We no longer send energy beyond the Prut, we no longer receive scholarships from Moldovan students, because of an artistic competition?
• I'm kidding, but it looks like some have given this some serious thought. Or maybe it's more than that.

What happened at Eurovision can be viewed from several perspectives. For example, the geopolitical one: a few days before the contest, the New York Times revealed how much diplomatic efforts and how much money Israel is investing in Eurovision. Stake? So that Israel gets a lot of votes from the public, even from countries with a very strong pro-Palestinian orientation.

For many countries, Eurovision is a great opportunity to promote themselves internationally, even with less ethical (or even illegal, journalists say) means.

The Turcanu case

For the Moldovans, however, the stake seemed to be different: to show Romania how much they value it.

And if the professional jury considered that Romania's song is not the best in the competition, then there is something wrong with the jury.

In this case, the one who paid with the position was the general director of Teleradio-Moldova Vlad Țurcanu. Although, at least in Romania, it is not very clear why he did it.

In an interview with HotNews, before he resigned, he said that the jury was selected based on a regulation set by the organizer, ie the European Radio and Television Union.

Jury or executors?

So what should the director of public television and radio from Moldova have done? The answer is obvious, floating in the air and written on all the fences: to show the jurors that the most points should be given to Romania's competition.

Even if the rules of the competition do not allow this.

Has this happened in the past? We don't know, but from the looks of it, it most likely is.

Information behind the scenes says that, in fact, some members of the jury would have asked the management of Teleradio Moldova who to vote with. But the management members, including Vlad Țurcanu, did not indicate anything to them. They told them to vote how they cut off his head. And how he indicates them artistically imposes. Basically, Eurovision is an artistic scene. Or isn't it?

Some sources say that the heads of the television station in Chisinau refrained from pointing it out to the jury because they were afraid that it might be “a trap”. That is, to be later accused of interfering with the work of an independent jury.

The information is credible for at least two reasons. First of all, the management of the television was under scrutiny anyway: a report of the Court of Accounts accused the directors of having spent money unjustifiably. And there were, as everywhere in public stations, conflicts with employees.

“The one who speaks Russian”

The second argument, however, is a much more important one. Although things look quite rosy from Bucharest, in the Republic of Moldova an important part of society does not notice a friend in Romania.

There are people, including in public institutions, who do not even speak Romanian, but Russian, as I have been told several times.

Even in the discussions we had on the topic of Eurovision I noticed the expression “a member of the jury who speaks Russian”. So at least one of the seven jurors spoke only Russian.

And now follows the legitimate question: and yet who were the members of the jury who did not like the Romanian play?

Their list is public anyway, but an article published on veridica.md by one of the jury members, Victoria Cușnir, caught my attention. She explained, from her point of view, why there was this low score for Romania.

“We also welcome the modern vision!”

In addition, he wanted to make the following clarification:

“This punctuation came from the young people (no – according to the regulations, there must be two people between the ages of 18 and 25 in the Eurovision jury). And one of the frequent refrains in the repertoire of booing year after year is: “What are the boșorogs looking for in the jury? Bring young people, with modern visions”. We also welcome the modern vision!”

If you had in mind some old people nostalgic for the times of the USSR who wanted to punish Romania (Russia is not allowed in the competition), you may have deceived us.

But Victor Cușnir also says something interesting: namely that “if Romania had a weak piece, I would have refused to be part of the jury from the start”.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand this statement: if we assume that the future John Lennon will participate in Eurovision for Finland (an example), will the jury in Moldova only have eyes for the Romanian contestant?

Public television has the largest audience

I don't know the resigned director of Teleradio Moldova, but I know something about public television and radio in the Republic of Moldova. We are talking about some institutions where, until recently, the records of correspondents from the territory were sent to Chisinau by minibus. Now I understand that it doesn't happen like that anymore, there are digital services.

Official data also show that Moldova 1 is the most watched station in the country. And speaking of the accusations, suggested or direct, that director Țurcanu (by the way, an assumed Romanian, both in public and in private) would not have cared for Romania: I think I have seen a bunch of Romanian analysts appearing on public stations.

Again, I have to make some clarifications about the local specifics of the Republic of Moldova. In general, it is not very good to criticize Romania on Chisinau television.

Actually, you can do it, but the “pro-Russian” label will be stuck on your forehead forever. Sure, there are dedicated pro-Russian media with money directly from the Kremlin, I'm only talking about the stations that claim to be pro-Western.

What happened in Moldova?

Probably many in Romania didn't understand what a big deal it was with the Republic of Moldova's vote at Eurovision.

Even the TVR commentators, the station that broadcast the competition in Romania, did not give too much importance when they read the number of points awarded by the jury in Chisinau.

But the scandal started the next day. As well as the accusations, as well as the apologies of the management of Teleradio-Moldova for the “regrettable situation” and for the “anti-Romanian scum in society”.

A former ambassador of the Republic of Moldova in Chisinau, Mihai Gribincea, wrote an article explaining the difference between the public's vote (which gave Romania all 12 points) and that of the jury: “the public reacted instinctively, affectively, with identity”, while the jury “showed diplomatic and ideological calculations”.

The diplomat also wonders: “Can a Moldovan identity separate from Romania be built indefinitely, using precisely Romanian culture as a foundation?”.

The Eurovision episode cannot be extracted from a wider topic, namely that of the union of Romania with the Republic of Moldova.

Ten years ago, perhaps such a scandal would not have come out. Because 10 years ago, if a politician brought up the subject of union, he was immediately put in the corner.

“Only marginal politicians talked about this topic, you were discredited if you approached the topic of union with Romania”, someone from Chisinau told me these days.

Today, things have changed.

Union with Romania is the “emergency plan”

Now the topic of union is simply on the public agenda. No one is upset anymore, and president Maia Sandu talks about union whenever she is given the opportunity.

And putting this subject back on the public agenda was done timidly, after the start of the war in Ukraine. Because, they say it themselves, the Moldavians were concretely afraid that they might be occupied, as happened in 1940.

Now the union is rather seen as a “plan B”, an emergency plan, in case the European integration is delayed or is no longer feasible, explained the former president of the Constitutional Court from Chisinau, Alexandru Tănase, in an interview for HotNews.

The former official also said something interesting: “The Constitution of the Republic of Moldova is probably the only Constitution in the world that contains an explicit provision that allows the discussion by referendum, including the possibility of the dissolution and disappearance of the state of the Republic of Moldova.

The feeling of approval of the union also increased in Chisinau and Bucharest

Regarding popular support for the union with Romania, the latest polls show an approval rate of over 40%, increasing in recent years.

If we look at things in this context, we can better understand the anger of those across the Prut on the jury that did not value Romania's Eurovision song as it should.

Surprisingly, there is real hope in the Republic of Moldova that it could become part of Romania. Hence the fear of upsetting one's “brothers”.

Brothers who, in turn, seem more favorable than ever to the union. How could this happen in reality? I don't know, but it's definitely more complicated than an exchange of Eurovision votes.