Authors

Luke March¹;  ¹ The University of Edinburgh, UK

Discussion

The Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM) and its long-standing leader, Igor Dodon, have received virtually no academic treatment, despite being relatively successful electoral actors. Dodon has been one of the most active politicians in Republic of Moldova (RM), being a former parliamentarian and government minister for the Communist Party (PCRM), and leading the breakaway PSRM since 2011. He was president of the RM between 2016 and 2020, while the PSRM won the 2014 and 2019 parliamentary elections and came second in 2021(in alliance with the PCRM). However, his political career appears to be ending in ignominy as he faces charges of corruption and treason, which he claims are politically motivated.

The PSRM makes an interesting case study of ‘radical left’ leadership in Eastern Europe and how it intertwines with Russian influence. On one hand, it is only ambiguously ‘radical left’ in programmatic terms, with its commitments to vague and inclusive ‘democratic socialism’ and equalities rhetoric and its highly socially conservative and populist stances. At the same time, it is clearly a party which derives from the post-Stalinist ‘radical left’ subculture, wherein this Left is associated strongly with Russophile, authoritarian and resolutely ‘old’ left positions, reflected in, inter alia, its commitments to democratic centralism, Russian Orthodoxy and anti-Atlanticism. Similar such parties include the Russian, Ukrainian and indeed Moldovan Communists, the Latvian Socialists and Milosevic's Serbian Socialists. So the case study, despite its idiosyncratic appearance, is illustrative of wider trends in the Eastern European ‘radical left’.

The analysis will explain the PSRM’s electoral successes (and more recent failures), looking in particular at the role of party statutes and informal structures. It will focus on the role of Dodon therein, concentrating on his public image, political communication and decision-making. Its central argument is that Dodon's one-sidedly pro-Russian image and links with the Russian state have conflicted with his efforts to present himself (and his party) as genuine Moldovan patriots and ultimately have contributed to his downfall.