Political analyst Cornel Ciurea believes that the government’s position regarding the Venice Commission’s Opinion on the June 2025 amendments to the Law on Political Parties is “quite risky and dangerous”. In an analysis published by politics.md, he argues that European partners, regardless of which government they support, have clear red lines in matters of democracy — and when those lines are crossed, political consequences tend to follow.

According to Ciurea, Moldova has previously seen governments strongly supported by European partners lose that support “overnight,” with key decision‑makers later facing legal or political repercussions. He cites past examples such as the creation of a minority government in 2015, the invalidation of the 2018 Chișinău mayoral election, and the 2018 electoral system change — all decisions that, he says, were not tolerated by European institutions. He notes that European actors are particularly sensitive when resolutions of the European Parliament, PACE, or Venice Commission opinions are disregarded, even if these opinions are formally consultative.

Ciurea argues that Moldova — or more precisely, the ruling Action and Solidarity Party (PAS) — is now facing a new test. The Venice Commission issued a critical opinion on the June 2025 amendments, suggesting in diplomatic terms that the new regulations deviate from democratic standards and create space for potential abuses. He notes that the opinion appears to validate the concerns of several opposition parties that claim to have been negatively affected by the changes. Among them, he highlights the case of the Republican Party “Heart of Moldova”, which was excluded from the electoral race just two days before the vote based on suspicions that have not been confirmed to date. The party’s activities also remain restricted for nearly six months, despite legal provisions requiring such cases to be examined within two months.

Ciurea states that PAS not only ignored these concerns but also attempted to reinterpret the Venice Commission’s opinion. He points to a public statement by Igor Grosu, Speaker of Parliament and PAS leader, who said the Commission had confirmed the need for the amendments. Ciurea argues that Grosu omitted the critical elements of the opinion, which he considers the most important. According to him, the Commission acknowledged PAS’s intention to address electoral corruption but disapproved of the mechanisms introduced, which it viewed as abusive and inconsistent with democratic norms.

The analyst concludes that PAS’s stance toward the Venice Commission’s opinion is “risky and dangerous” for the party itself. If the ruling party does not remove the provisions deemed abusive and adopted shortly before parliamentary elections, Ciurea believes it risks losing the confidence of European partners. While Europeans may avoid strong public statements, he argues that they could eventually distance themselves from PAS, as they have done with previous Moldovan governments that crossed democratic red lines.

He ends by saying that PAS now holds its own political fate in its hands, and if it fails to act, “the countdown for PAS may have already begun”.