Ambassador Louis O’Neill

Head of OSCE Mission to Moldova

Opening Remarks – Center for European Security’s Moldova
Parliamentary Program
Moldovan Parliament, February 21, 2007
Chisinau, Moldova
(check against delivery)

Mr. Chairman, esteemed members of Parliament, Ambassadors, dear colleagues,

good afternoon and thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the Center
for European Security’s very important Moldova Parliamentary Program. The OSCE
Mission to Moldova is a proud sponsor of this event and I am delighted to take part in the
official opening. The rest of the day promises to be a very interesting and challenging one
indeed.

In fact, today’s seminar provides a chance to look more deeply into what is, I
believe, the most fundamental principle of democratic governance: the notion of checks
and balances on governmental power and authority. Every other aspect of democracy
flows from the idea that there are institutional controls that prevent any one branch, group,
or individual leader from becoming too strong and too unaccountable. Of course, the three
co-equal branches – the legislative, executive and judicial – sometimes work together on
matters of national concern, but their most important role – and their obligation – in
ensuring freedom is to oppose one another, critically but constructively, and thus keep each
other honest and responsive.

Moldova has committed itself to reforms which will further promote democratization
and it has chosen a European orientation. There are many different models of democracy
in the Euro-Atlantic family, but all share a clear conception that legislatures, acting on
behalf of the people who elected them, must hold the executive to account, no matter how
popular, forceful or confident that executive may be.
 • Parliament must be able to examine and challenge the work of the government, and
the role of parliamentary committees in this is crucial.

• To be fully effective committees must be able to summon members of the executive,

officials and expert witnesses and subject them to detailed questioning. They must
be also able to call for and examine all relevant documents.

• To maintain public confidence, committees must be independent, they should not

work in secret and their findings should be published whenever possible. If – as
may be the case with defense or security matters – the information in question is
classified, there can be provisions for holding the sessions in confidence, but they
must be carefully controlled.

• Legislative committees should be cross-party, impartial, responsive and, whenever

possible, reach a consensus on their findings.

• Parliament as a whole must subsequently have an opportunity to consider the

findings of the committees and debate them openly.

In addition to the extensive work of Legislative Committees, many democracies require

a legislative role in personnel decisions. The United States Constitutional, for example,
requires the “advice and consent” of the legislature for the appointment of all major
executive branch figures, including Ministers, Judges, Ambassadors and Generals. This
approach forces the Executive to be responsive and in constant touch with lawmakers in an
accountable, on-going negotiation over top positions. Such hearings are publicized and
often lead to serious and interesting debates and thus a more informed public.

Our seminar today looks specifically at democratic oversight of the security sector.
Moldova’s review and evaluation of many basic documents in this area is key to that
reform, and is partly driven by the commitment Moldova has made to the Individual
Partnership Action Plan drawn up under NATO’s Partnership for Peace Programme.

Of course, defense and security are areas which governments like to keep under strict
control. They often refuse close scrutiny under the pretext of the need for secrecy.
Though few would deny that some issues in these areas are sensitive, this should not be
used as an excuse to prevent parliament from closely examining them.

In fact, sometimes the information governments seek to withhold has turned out to be
much less reliable than it was claimed to be. And the consequences of mistakes in the
fields of defense and security are often much greater than in other areas of government
activity. For these reasons there is an even greater need of robust, but responsible
examination of these matters.

Even more troubling, some governments try to use defense and security matters as an
excuse for increasing controls and restricting personal freedom. Of course, when there is a
threat – such as the one the world faces from terrorism – striking a balance between
personal safety and preserving individual liberties can be difficult. But this just makes it
even more important that those responsible for scrutinizing legislation be convinced that
governments are acting properly.

But we need to be particularly careful about the notion that “the government knows
best” because often it doesn’t, and decision-making in secret or without input from the
other branches of government can lead to serious trouble. My country, the United States
of America, learned this in the 1970s with the Watergate scandal when a President usurped
far too much power and was only reigned in first of all by a vigorous press and only then
by the Legislature. And debate will rage for years to come on the level of Legislative
compliance in recent American foreign policy decisions, particularly now on questions of
whether to limit funding – another powerful legislative prerogative – for the Iraq war.
 Moreover, it is one thing to convince parliamentarians to exert their watchdog function,
but what about convincing the public that parliament and government can be trusted?
People are often cynical about their politicians and are inclined to think that their leaders
have personal, rather than national, interests at heart. What can be done to counter this?
Here are some thoughts:

• The people’s must get the government that they choose; elections need to be free
and fair in all cases.

• Government and parliament must be open; the people must be able to see what is
being done in their name.

• Government ministers, members of parliament and all public servants must be

honest; corruption should be fought aggressively to show that everyone is equal
before the law. The default assumption about public servants should be that they are
clean, not corrupt.

• There must be free, pluralistic and vigorous print and electronic media in which
journalists enjoy open access to information and are able to report issues without
fear of pressure or intimidation. In return, journalists must behave responsibly and
objectively.

• Civil society, grass roots participation and NGO networks must be developed within
democratic processes: government is too important to be left just to those who hold
office.

• The system of checks and balances must be completed by a truly independent

judiciary; this means doing whatever it takes to insulate judges from any form of
political pressure in their decision making.
 The Republic of Moldova has already taken many important steps to meet these
conditions. Strengthening legislative oversight will be a valuable contribution to this
process. Moreover, as Moldova continues down this path, and, as a consequence, develops
a strong and viable economy with the help and support of its international partners, it will
become more of an example to those on the left bank of the River Nistru who aspire to the
same opportunities.

So I wish all of you every success, and I am confident that much good will come from
implementation of the ideas discussed today. As always, the OSCE stands ready to offer
further assistance, advice and encouragement to the Republic of Moldova in this endeavor.
Thank you very much.