Lessons from Moldova’s Referendum: Navigating the Crossroads to a European Future

As Moldova heads into the second round of its presidential elections, recent political events – notably the narrow EU referendum result and the unexpected dynamics in the presidential race – provide critical insights into the country’s political landscape and its path toward European integration. Understanding the underlying causes behind these developments sheds light on Moldova’s polarized society and the external and internal challenges it faces.

Many have discussed Russia’s disinformation campaigns that have been persistent and influential in Moldova, targeting pro-EU sentiments by questioning the legitimacy of the pro-Western government and Moldova’s EU integration pathway. These campaigns often involve fabricating stories about the perceived failures of EU-aligned policies, generating doubts about Moldova’s capacity to integrate with the EU while amplifying fears around potential economic and social instability. Although much attention has been on the persistent disinformation campaigns orchestrated by Russia, there are other factors at play to consider.

The referendum on EU integration, where only 50,4% voted in favor, reveals a significant ambivalence within Moldovan society. Many pro-European regions that backed Maia Sandu, the incumbent presidential candidate, surprisingly opposed EU membership in the referendum. This discrepancy highlights the intricate factors at play in Moldova.

Picture Source: Vecteezy.com

Societal Polarization: The Enduring Divide

Moldova’s societal polarization is a central factor shaping voter behavior, revealing cleavages that run through various social spheres, including politics, media, and even religious institutions. The electorate’s perception of Moldova’s direction reveals deep-seated concerns. According to recent polling, a majority of Moldovans (54%) believe the country is on the wrong track, a sentiment especially prevalent among rural residents (57%) and those aged 35 and older. Only 41% view the country’s path positively. Economic challenges dominate public concern, with the cost of living, unemployment, corruption, and low wages ranking as the most pressing issues. This focus on immediate survival signals widespread frustration with the broader political and economic landscape, as Moldovans grapple with entrenched structural issues.

Political actors who gained more votes in Moldova, understand that over the past two years, the electorate’s primary concerns have remained welfare and security, reflecting an urgent need for social stability and economic assurance over geopolitical preferences. In these elections, these issues have been strategically framed within a geopolitical narrative, positioning Europe as a pathway to enhanced welfare and security, while Russia’s role is presented as an alternative that offers similar promises. However, this approach is not necessarily driven by a deep pro-Russian orientation; rather, it reflects an appetite for balanced foreign policy that accommodates Moldova’s domestic priorities.

A divide between pro-European and pro-Russian groups is particularly pronounced in regions like Gagauzia and Transnistria, where cultural and historical factors have entrenched skepticism toward Western integration. But even there and throughout the country, this polarization extends beyond individual preferences, manifesting in institutions that wield significant influence over public opinion. For example, one of the most influential and complex actors in this divide is the church, which in many rural communities holds more sway than local governance. Functioning as one of Moldova’s strongest civic institutions, the church is also one of its least transparent, with a financial structure involving funds from Russia that operates within a hierarchical network. This opacity allows the church to wield its influence with minimal scrutiny, further complicating efforts toward societal consensus on Moldova’s foreign policy trajectory.

Another critical factor in this polarized landscape is A longstanding underinvestment in Moldova’s educational sector, which has left much of the population without the critical thinking skills necessary to discern reliable information from disinformation. This susceptibility to misinformation, particularly in rural areas, has allowed narratives that paint the EU as a threat to resonate. For Moldova to overcome its divisions, targeted investment in education, alongside initiatives focused on media literacy, will be essential. This approach would not only empower citizens to navigate information more critically but also build a more resilient society, capable of making informed choices about Moldova’s future.

On the EU’s side, the lack of targeted public diplomacy efforts tailored to Moldova’s unique societal and regional needs has compounded the issue.

Economic Vulnerabilities: A Systemic Challenge Shaping Moldova’s Future

Moldova’s economic hardships are pervasive, with one-third of the population living below the poverty line. As reports explain, Moldova’s economic landscape is marked by multidimensional poverty, which restricts access to essential services such as healthcare, education, public utilities, and employment opportunities. Particularly affected are vulnerable groups: rural residents, women, youth, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and the Roma community, all of whom face significant barriers to social inclusion and economic participation.

Local governance challenges compound the country’s economic struggles. Small, institutionally weak municipalities, particularly in rural areas where demographics skew older, face substantial obstacles in delivering basic services. Further, many Moldovans above age 50 were trained under the Soviet Union’s economic system and now struggle to find employment. In urban areas, particularly the capital, the elderly are considered one of the most economically disadvantaged populations, with limited access to healthcare and struggling to live on insufficient pensions.

The complex economic environment has left Moldova’s rural poor particularly vulnerable, creating fertile ground for political exploitation by figures like Ilan Șor. As a sanctioned billionaire with ties to Kremlin-backed interference, Șor has established a substantial network of “spoiler parties” that divert attention from Moldova’s EU aspirations. These groups manipulate economic grievances to amplify public doubt and skepticism toward European integration. Șor’s strategy involves building a parallel influence network, appealing directly to economically disadvantaged communities who feel abandoned by the state, especially the elderly. This group, often isolated socially and economically, is vulnerable to disinformation campaigns that frame the EU as a threat to Moldova’s cultural identity and security.

Exploiting these socio-economic challenges, Șor and his allies provide material support and a sense of belonging, reinforcing loyalty among disenfranchised groups through paid protests, team-building activities, and networks that foster dependence. This pseudo-political network instills a distorted sense of purpose among its members, who become easy targets for anti-EU rhetoric and vote buying.

Addressing Moldova’s economic vulnerabilities requires not only a shift in economic policies but also the fortification of social safety nets to counteract political manipulation. Without this, Moldova’s economically vulnerable populations will remain susceptible to oligarchic networks that actively undermine Moldova’s EU trajectory.

Picture Source: Vecteezy.com

Public Diplomacy Deficit: The Communication Gap

The referendum results in Moldova highlight a significant failure in public diplomacy, both from Moldovan and EU stakeholders. The communication approach on the Moldovan side was narrow and overly centralized, positioning EU integration as an elite-driven project rather than a national vision that includes and benefits the broader population. Messages about EU support were often framed in terms of abstract financial figures—such as the millions invested in infrastructure and services—rather than conveying how these investments tangibly improve the everyday lives of Moldovan citizens. This focus on financial metrics, without meaningful contextualization, has fueled skepticism, as many people perceive these funds as vulnerable to corruption and misallocation.

Only recently has Moldova shifted to a more people-centered approach, incorporating messages of peace, stability, and future prosperity in its EU-related communication. Yet, this shift comes after years of Russian disinformation, which has gained substantial traction among the population by framing the EU as detached from the practical concerns of everyday life. The persistent failure to engage Moldovans on an emotional and accessible level has allowed Russian narratives to fill the information gap, cultivating doubts about Moldova’s EU pathway.

On the EU’s side, the lack of targeted public diplomacy efforts tailored to Moldova’s unique societal and regional needs has compounded the issue. Since the signing of the Association Agreement in 2014, there has been little in the way of localized communication campaigns that would directly address the specific concerns and information needs of rural and vulnerable populations. Russian propaganda, by contrast, has been highly localized, emotionally resonant, and specific, amplifying fears about EU integration and portraying the EU as culturally and economically destabilizing.

In regions that are less directly exposed to EU benefits, the absence of clear, relatable narratives has allowed disinformation to dominate. Moldova’s polarized information environment, coupled with a lack of public diplomacy efforts focused on media literacy, has deepened the disconnect between supporting pro-EU leaders like Maia Sandu and embracing full EU integration. To bridge this gap, both Moldovan and EU actors need to invest in a nuanced, multi-layered communication strategy that effectively conveys the concrete advantages of EU alignment in a way that resonates with Moldovan citizens. This requires not just data and investment figures but personal, community-level storytelling that connects European support with improvements in Moldova’s everyday life and long-term stability.

What’s at Stake in Moldova’s Presidential Runoff and the Road to 2025

As Moldova enters the second round of its presidential elections, the stakes extend far beyond immediate leadership. Maia Sandu, the pro-European incumbent, and Alexandr Stoianoglo, her challenger with strong support from conservative, pro-Russian segments, represent starkly different visions for Moldova’s future. Sandu’s campaign is grounded in anti-corruption, judicial reform, and a strong orientation towards EU integration. Stoianoglo’s platform appeals to Moldovans skeptical of the EU, highlighting issues of governance and national identity that resonate with voters dissatisfied with the status quo. His rhetoric has questioned the recent EU referendum, portraying it as an elite-driven initiative disconnected from the concerns of many citizens.

For Sandu, diaspora support could play a pivotal role in securing victory, providing a counterbalance to Stoianoglo’s domestic conservative base. Yet, Moldova’s deep polarization presents challenges; even with a potential win, Sandu will face the task of bridging the societal divide that has defined this election. Whether through targeted outreach or fostering an inclusive dialogue, a sustainable mandate will require engaging both supporters and skeptics in a common vision.

Moldova’s Decisive Moment: The 2025 Parliamentary Elections

Moldova’s narrow referendum result and polarized presidential race suggest that the 2025 parliamentary elections could be a turning point. While the pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) currently holds a parliamentary majority, the political landscape is fractured, with multiple pro-Russian factions and smaller pro-European parties vying for influence. This fragmentation, fueled by spoiler factions and oligarchic networks, risks further deepening the country’s divides if left unchecked. A balanced and collaborative parliamentary environment would strengthen Moldova’s democratic resilience, offering a bulwark against both internal polarization and external pressures.

The referendum and the first round of presidential elections underscore the complex forces shaping Moldova’s future: societal polarization, economic vulnerabilities, and a significant public diplomacy gap in communicating EU benefits. The divide between pro-European and pro-Russian sentiment, amplified by disinformation, demands strategic action from Moldova’s leadership, diaspora, and civil society. An inclusive, transparent approach to addressing these challenges will be crucial for building a shared national vision rooted in democratic resilience and long-term prosperity.

The outcome of the parliamentary elections will set the course for Moldova’s governance and its EU aspirations. A diverse yet cooperative Parliament can foster stability and push forward pro-European reforms, whereas a single dominant party or an increase in spoiler factions could lead to continued political instability and weaken democratic processes.

Share this on social media