The Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (PLDM) states that the governing program presented by the Tofan Cabinet does not represent a genuine change of direction, but rather a repackaged version of the same promises previously made by the Munteanu Cabinet, TRIBUNA reports.

“The new Government once again promises economic recovery, investment, industrialization, attracting private capital, tax reform, reorganization of local public administration, accelerated European integration, digitalization, modern infrastructure, and more efficient public services.

However, it fails to answer the fundamental question: what resources will be used to fulfill all these commitments, and what concrete indicators will allow citizens to evaluate the Government’s performance?

The Munteanu Cabinet came to power with an ambitious investment agenda. In reality, as we have repeatedly stated, the state lacked the resources necessary to achieve these objectives. Instead of building an economy capable of financing development, the Republic of Moldova accumulated even more debt and ultimately asked citizens and businesses to cover the resulting budget deficit through higher taxes.

The Tofan Cabinet does not explain why the same promises would now produce different results. The country’s fundamental economic conditions have not changed. Moldova remains a small market located next to a major war, dependent on expensive energy, affected by emigration, labor shortages, inadequate infrastructure, and fiscal instability,” the party said.

According to PLDM, the novelty of the Tofan program lies in its declared intention to gradually replace the state as the primary investor with the private sector. The Government is relying on investment funds, guarantees, stock market listings, privatizations, and partnerships with businesses. However, this approach is based on a false assumption: a lack of public funds does not automatically mean that sufficient private capital exists.

Private capital can complement the state’s efforts, but it cannot replace the state in building roads, energy networks, water infrastructure, education, healthcare, defense, public administration, or regional development. Before expecting private investors to modernize the country, the state must first create the minimum conditions that make investment economically viable.

PLDM notes that the Tofan Cabinet’s program contains no real or verifiable economic indicators. While the Government declares economic recovery as its primary objective, it does not specify the annual growth rate it intends to achieve.

“The program does not establish the necessary investment volume, the targeted share of industry in GDP, the number of productive jobs to be created, the expected volume of foreign direct investment, reductions in the trade deficit, or productivity growth.

Annual economic growth of only 2–3% cannot ensure Moldova’s convergence with European Union economies. Sustainable development requires annual growth of at least 5–6%, maintained over the long term. Achieving such a goal would require total annual investment equivalent to approximately 25–30% of GDP, which, based on Moldova’s current GDP, amounts to roughly 90–105 billion lei, or €4.5–5.3 billion annually.

Realistically, the state could provide only around €1.2–1.8 billion through public investment, grants, or loans. The Tofan Cabinet’s program does not explain where the remaining €3–3.5 billion per year will come from.

At the same time, the Government continues referring to the European Union’s €1.9 billion Growth Plan without specifying how much funding remains available for new commitments, how much consists of grants versus loans, or what amounts have already been contracted or allocated.

Without this information, the program fails to demonstrate how it will cover the nearly €5 billion in annual investment required and risks repeating the main weakness of the previous Cabinet: adopting ambitious economic objectives without a credible financial foundation.”

PLDM also warns that the announced tax reform risks becoming, once again, a tool for covering the budget deficit rather than promoting economic development.

“The Government promises to reduce the tax burden on investment and labor while simultaneously requiring additional revenue to finance its spending commitments. If this contradiction is resolved through higher VAT, the elimination of tax incentives, or broader taxation, the costs will ultimately be borne by citizens and businesses.

Prices will rise, real consumption will decline, and businesses will face additional pressure in an already weak economy. PLDM believes that the budget deficit cannot be reduced by placing an additional burden on citizens and businesses. Austerity measures may undermine investment and even reduce the budget revenues the Government seeks to protect.”

Regarding local public administration reform, the Tofan Cabinet acknowledges that Moldova’s current administrative-territorial organization no longer reflects demographic and economic realities.

However, PLDM argues that the program fails to provide a concrete blueprint for the reform. It does not specify how many administrative units will remain, what will happen to the districts, what powers and own-source revenues the new administrations will receive, what assets will be transferred, how much the reorganization will cost, or how citizens’ access to public services will be ensured.

“A larger municipality does not automatically mean a stronger community. Without fiscal autonomy, infrastructure, jobs, and a regional economic vision, the reform risks creating only larger administrative structures that will continue managing the same decline.”

On European integration, PLDM reaffirmed its firm support for Moldova’s accession to the European Union:

“However, European integration should not be used as a substitute for domestic economic performance. We remind everyone that the timetable for signing the Accession Treaty does not depend solely on the Government of the Republic of Moldova. It depends on assessments by European institutions, decisions by EU member states, and the broader European political context. Therefore, the Government is taking responsibility for objectives that are beyond its control and is turning the accession timetable into an instrument of domestic political propaganda.”

PLDM further states that while the Tofan Cabinet recognizes demographic decline, emigration, population aging, and low birth rates, it addresses these issues only indirectly, as factors justifying sectoral reforms, rather than treating them as Moldova’s central strategic challenge.

The party argues that the program lacks a distinct national strategy to halt depopulation, does not establish measurable indicators for net migration, birth rates, the return of citizens, or stabilization of the working-age population, and fails to explain how a sustainable economy can be built in a country that continues losing its population.

“Without people to work, consume, invest, and contribute to the budget, objectives related to economic growth, industrialization, administrative reform, the pension system, and European integration lack a demographic foundation.

PLDM believes that the true measure of a governing program’s success is not merely the number of reforms adopted or projects financed, but the state’s ability to stop the population exodus and restore citizens’ confidence that they can build their future at home.

Without people, there is no economy; without an economy, there is no development; and without development, there can be no European integration.”

The party also argues that the composition of the Tofan Cabinet confirms political and administrative continuity with the PAS government.

“Most ministers from the Munteanu Cabinet have remained in office.

No public evaluation of their performance has been presented, nor have the criteria been explained according to which some ministers were retained while others were replaced.

PLDM notes that those removed were primarily the ministers who caused the greatest reputational damage to the Government. This appears to have been the decisive criterion for the reshuffle, rather than accountability for economic, social, and institutional outcomes.

If the previous governing program failed while most of the team responsible for implementing it remains in place, citizens have the right to ask what exactly has changed.

The Tofan Cabinet represents the natural continuation of the political project and governing philosophy promoted by President Maia Sandu over recent years. Its governing program does not propose a fundamentally different vision from that underlying previous PAS governments, but rather develops the same strategic direction using the same governing instruments.

Under these circumstances, the Tofan Cabinet cannot be presented as a new beginning, but rather as a continuation of the same model of governance. Its success or failure cannot be separated from the overall assessment of the governing model built and promoted during the PAS administration.”

PLDM calls on the Tofan Cabinet to publish a comprehensive financial annex to its governing program detailing the cost of each objective, its funding source, implementation timeline, responsible institution, and measurable performance indicator.

“The Republic of Moldova needs a Government that clearly states how much it will invest, where the money will come from, which projects it prioritizes, what economic growth rate it aims to achieve, and who will be held accountable if commitments are not fulfilled.

Without these answers, the Tofan Cabinet’s program is not a governing plan, but a new catalogue of promises that citizens risk paying for through higher taxes, additional debt, and a declining standard of living,” the Liberal Democrats concluded.