Honesty pays off in Moldova

In two elections, voters in the former Soviet state have been won over by a leader who sees the honesty in them as key to solving the country’s woes.

Reuters
Moldova's President Maia Sandu speaks after voting in the July 11 parliamentary elections.

When politician Maia Sandu is on the campaign trail in her small country of Moldova, her favorite word is “honest.” She uses it to describe “the majority” of her fellow citizens more than herself. “Honest people can be promoted only by citizens,” she says. It helped her last year in being elected president and again on July 11 when her party won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections. The Harvard-trained former World Bank economist is, according to one political analyst, the first person in Moldova to come to power “preserving a reputation for honesty.”

While she says honesty in public officials is key to curbing corruption, Ms. Sandu also emphasizes it as a way out of Moldova’s geopolitical muddle. As in many former Soviet republics, Moldova’s 2.6 million people remain divided in their leanings between Russia and the West – three decades after independence. A fifth of the people speak Russian as a first language and are influenced by Russian TV. She, like similar reformers in Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, and Belarus, understands that the best escape from that tired debate lies in creating an honest and transparent democratic state with independent courts that simply serve the people.

Her own honesty has now helped put her Action and Solidarity Party into power. Ms. Sandu and the party hope to fix one of Europe’s most corrupt and poorest countries, one sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine. In June, the European Union promised €600 million ($707 million) in aid if reforms are implemented. For now, Russia has lost many of its political allies in Moldova although it has 1,500 troops in the country’s breakaway Transnistria region. President Vladimir Putin could heat up that “frozen conflict” to cause trouble.

Ms. Sandu, the country’s first female head of state, is in a race to clean up government, especially in preventing bribery. As education minister between 2012 and 2015, she achieved some success in preventing cheating in baccalaureate examinations by placing cameras in exam rooms. By one estimate, bribery in education was halved.

Her party’s website says the current system of governance “does not reward the honest.” But Ms. Sandu promises to “appoint an honest prime minister, honest judges and honest people to all government bodies.” It’s a word she keeps repeating. Perhaps because, in its appeal to people’s desire for truth and trust, it can have real power.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.