Eastern Partnership Focus: Interview with Amy Eaglestone on Elections in Moldova

Image

Amy Eaglestone is completing her PhD at the University of Birmingham and is a lecturer at the Institute of Political Science in Leiden. She has over 15 years of experience in democracy development. Her research focuses on comparative politics, (de)democratization, and political parties, with a regional emphasis on Eastern Europe, especially Moldova and Georgia.

TED Secretariat: Looking at the 2025 parliamentary elections in Moldova, what would you identify as the key structural trends shaping voter behaviour?

Amy Eaglestone: Several dynamics stood out. First, there was significant discussion about Russian influence—disinformation, manipulation, attempts to sway voters. Compared to previous elections, we saw a real escalation of those efforts, but they didn’t decisively change the outcome either. On the other hand, PAS (Party of Action and Solidarity) has been in power for several years and claims major progress on European integration. They’ve made major progress recently, for example, completing the screening phase of the EU accession process. This has offered voters clarity on a path towards European integration. However, PAS has underdelivered on other promises from their earlier platform, like poverty alleviation, anti-corruption, and judicial reform. The lack of progress there has turned some people away. There’s also to some extent a perception of PAS as an urban, Western-educated elite that hasn’t connected with all parts of society. That sense of disconnect has frustrated some voters. Also, opposition and pro-Russian actors highlighted governance flaws and amplified corruption stories—some real, some exaggerated. So, I think voters were influenced by both satisfaction with progress on EU integration, dissatisfaction with PAS failures and by the disinformation ecosystem.

TED Secretariat: Did the government handle the corruption allegations and disinformation effectively?

Amy Eaglestone: In hindsight, it looks like both the government and the European Union worked extremely hard to keep the elections fair. On election day itself, there was a lot of coordination to deal with issues that emerged. For example, bomb threats at diaspora polling stations were handled quickly; stations reopened within hours. Viral videos of ballot boxes on fire were addressed rapidly. That said, the sheer volume of disinformation cannot have been fully countered. Investigative journalists documented funds routed from Russia through Kremlin-linked Moldovan oligarchs to influencers, who then pushed scripted content or when onto the street to conduct biased “public polling.” Russian-language media reaches audiences that don’t follow Romanian-language or European outlets per se, which matters. That’s definitely an information gap. PAS lost 8 seats in parliament, so we can assume both genuine dissatisfaction and some impact of disinformation, though the extent is hard to quantify. At the same time, there’s also a large part of the population that’s simply fed up with Russian interference. Despite everything, many Moldovans still chose the European trajectory.

TED Secretariat: Moldova’s elections were held in a context of alleged hybrid interference and disinformation. What does this tell us about the resilience of small democracies under external pressure, and how might Moldova’s experience inform EU or regional responses?

Amy Eaglestone: Two lessons. First, a small state at Europe’s periphery can deliver a credible, reasonably fair vote under extreme external pressure if institutions are committed and supported. That’s impressive. Second, the Moldovan case shows that Russian interference isn’t omnipotent. Despite pouring resources into the campaign—money, disinformation, and influence networks—Moscow ultimately failed to change the result. That’s remarkable, and it tells us that resilience can be built, both institutionally and societally. There was concern Moldova might drift toward a Georgia-style scenario if PAS couldn’t form a majority. So, this election was a test—and the outcome shows that it’s possible to resist interference while maintaining democratic processes.

TED Secretariat: What other factors helped PAS retain a majority despite economic strain, external pressure, and perceptions of elitism?

Amy Eaglestone: Moldovans consistently show strong support for EU integration—polls put it at over 60%. In this election, PAS was essentially the only viable pro-European governing option. Voters likely behaved strategically: they’ve seen parties claim pro-EU credentials while being run by oligarchic interests who then fail to deliver. There’s dissatisfaction with the government and frustration about inequality or elitism, but for many, the alternative—a shift toward Russia—was unacceptable. Many therefore chose the reliable pro-EU option. However, there is a long-term risk in having only one major pro-European party. If there’s no competition for that space, it could create complacency or limit democratic choice in the future.

TED Secretariat: From a governance and rule-of-law perspective, how do you assess the exclusion of certain opposition parties from the race? Was it a legitimate response to illicit funding, or a worrying precedent for political pluralism?

Amy Eaglestone: Democratic pluralism only works if the parties competing in the system themselves uphold democratic principles. If you have a range of parties that undermine democracy, pluralism becomes meaningless. As I understand it, the bans were legally justified—related to party financing violations, and the electoral commission had grounds to act. However, doing this two days before the vote looks problematic politically. Many of these actors were not committed to the rule of law, but the timing still raises concerns about optics and trust. It highlights the tension between protecting democracy and preserving its openness.

TED Secretariat: These elections were widely framed as a geopolitical choice (Europe vs. Russia). Did that framing simplify or distort the domestic policy debate? Are socioeconomic issues being depoliticized in favour of identity politics?

Amy Eaglestone: Yes, absolutely. From the outside, it’s tempting to reduce Moldova to a “pro-Russian vs. pro-European” binary, but the reality is far more complex. Divides are rooted in language, ethnicity, values, and identity, but also in socioeconomic realities. Many people care deeply about day-to-day issues—education, healthcare, poverty, corruption. They want decent jobs and stable livelihoods. Those topics received far less attention because the geopolitical framing dominated everything. There is a tendency to label parties as “pro-Russian” or “pro-European,” but within each camp there are differences in ideology and policy. While geopolitics matters, it overshadowed many of the socioeconomic issues voters face every day.

TED Secretariat: Looking ahead, what indicators should we watch to judge whether the election strengthens or weakens Moldova’s democratic trajectory?

Amy Eaglestone: I’d point to three things: European integration, Russian interference, and domestic political development. First, on EU integration: PAS will continue to push forward, aligning politically and economically with the EU. Whether they reach the 2030 membership goal might depend on future crises, but both sides are committed. Second, Russian interference isn’t going away. Moscow has invested heavily in influence operations and won’t just give up. We should expect ongoing efforts to destabilise Moldova—whether through disinformation, energy leverage, or other forms of pressure. Third, domestically, the biggest risk is that PAS is currently the only viable pro-European party. If Moldova joins the EU and then a pro-Russian party wins the next election, we could end up with another EU member whose government undermines democratic norms and European values. The long-term challenge is to build a pluralistic field of parties that are all committed to democratic rules. Without that, any future change in power could undo the progress of recent years.

TED Secretariat: What can still be done to strengthen public trust in democratic institutions?

Amy Eaglestone: Public trust is incredibly hard to build and very easy to lose. It’s a slow process that requires consistency and transparency. People need to see stability and honesty in how political and democratic processes are conducted. Strengthening independent institutions in the Moldovan content is crucial: the judiciary, banking system, and anti-corruption mechanisms. That reduces opportunities for illicit financing and limits the influence of non-democratic actors. When citizens see functioning, fair institutions—and when corruption is visibly punished—trust gradually grows. It’s not quick, but that’s how democratic resilience takes root.