Since taking office in 2020, Moldovan President Maja Sandu has been hailed in Brussels as the poster child for liberalism in an increasingly fragile post-Soviet Europe. Sandu has carefully crafted her image to embody European progressivism, even scheduling Moldova’s historic EU membership referendum on the day she runs for re-election. However, Sandu’s record as a liberal and as president has been one of failure. Under her care, Moldovan institutions, far from becoming stronger, became weaker. The widening gulf between words and deeds has left in her wake a trail of broken promises and a streak of authoritarianism, particularly in the media. Things weren’t supposed to be like this.
Sandhu came to power on a promise of sweeping reforms on a pro-European, anti-corruption platform that endeared her to voters. But Moldovan institutions either remain corrupt or are not fit for purpose. They were simply not ready for prime time in Europe. Despite her lack of action, her leadership has been praised by Western allies, who see her as a bulwark against Russian influence. Under her leadership, the EU granted Moldova candidate status, and she has maintained high public support for EU membership. However, this veneer of European approval masks a series of grossly undemocratic actions that undermine the very values Sandhu claims to champion.
You won’t read much about it in the Western media, but the Sandu government systematically suppresses political opposition, media freedom, and civil liberties. Just months into her term, she triggered a constitutional crisis by repeatedly nominating close allies as prime minister, despite a parliamentary majority backing a rival. Contrary to all existing practice, Sandhu refused to listen to parliament, leaving the government in deadlock and paving the way for snap elections that her party would officially win.
Under the guise of fighting corruption and Russian influence, her government has implemented measures that echo those of an authoritarian regime. A prominent example is the introduction of sedition laws, which Amnesty International harshly criticized as potentially being misused to stifle dissent. The law not only stifles and criminalizes fundamental political discourse that should be protected under international law, but also directly allows for the denunciation of media and political opponents without due process.
The banning of the Opportunities Party and subsequent legal battles revealed a disturbing trend of using judicial power to eliminate political opponents. This approach not only stifles discourse but also raises questions about the legitimacy of Sandhu’s commitment to democratic principles. Don’t the Moldovan people, who support reforming institutions in a different way, deserve a voice?
Despite Sandhu’s pro-European stance, her tenure was marred by significant failures in countering Russian influence or dependence. Despite all her anti-Putin posturing, Moldova still gets 80% of its electricity from Russian power plants in Transnistria at heavily subsidized prices. Sandu must walk the talk if she is to deliver on her promise to transform Moldova into an independent, forward-thinking country.
The human side of this political drama cannot be ignored. The Moldovan people have become cynical and distrustful of those in power, regardless of their political affiliation. They still face the risk of becoming pawns in geopolitical strategies. The EU’s endorsement of Sandu’s government, if not addressing the country’s democratic deficits (which have worsened under Sandu), will only encourage his government’s authoritarian tendencies.
Sandhu’s dual role as liberal champion and authoritarian policy enforcer presents a disturbing narrative. Her actions continually contradict her professed ideals, exposing a leader willing to sacrifice democratic values for political capital. The European Union must learn the lessons of past enlargements and ensure that Moldova’s accession is contingent on real, practical reforms. Without this, both Europe and the Moldovan people will suffer, trapped in a cycle of repression under the guise of progress. The true test of Sandhu’s leadership lies not in her alignment with Western values but in her adherence to those values in practice.
Further reading on electronic international relations
