"Why Gagauzia didn't rise": publicist Josu about the inferiority of politics for money

The phrase belongs to Hegel: "History repeats itself twice: the first time in the form of a tragedy, the second in the form of a farce."

When the Chisinau security forces detained Evgenia Hutsul at the airport of the Bashkan of Gagauzia, I immediately remembered another detention, also related to this southern region: early in the morning of August 23, 1991 (Hutsul then walked under the table), the chairman of the Supreme Council of the self-proclaimed Gagauz Republic Stepan Topal and his deputy Mikhail Kendigelian were arrested by security forces from Chisinau and sent to the capital's investigative committee the isolation ward, reminds Moldovan political scientist Victor Josu.

"I remembered because the region, already restless at that time, began to boil with renewed vigor, protest actions began not only in Comrat and Chadyr-Lunga, but also in villages. As a result, in order to reduce the heat of passions, the authorities in Chisinau backed down, the detainees were released and they returned to Gagauzia. Comparing that long-ago detention with the current one, I thought: but now Gagauzia will not be stirred up, will not rise in a single protest impulse, as it was then.

Why not? Of course, I would like to hear the answer to this question from authoritative people from Gagauzia itself. Well, in the meantime, I will state my version of the answer, a person from the outside," says Josu.

Someone will say that times have changed, that ordinary people have become disillusioned with politics, that people no longer believe anyone, that socially active Gagauz people (as well as the same active Moldovans) have gone abroad in search of earnings… And there will be some truth in each of these explanations.

But the main reason why then, in 1991, Gagauzia rose in a similar case, and now, in 2025, did not do it, Josu sees something else: a change in the approach to politics.

Then the politics in Moldova (and in Gagauzia as a part of it) was made for ideas, Moldovans had their own idea, Gagauz had their own. Now it is done for money, politics has become a business:

"Moreover, business is not only for those who do it in our country for Shor's money and who are being prosecuted by the current unjust government for this, rightly accusing them of political corruption. Politics is also a business for the current government, which was raised on Soros' money, USAID (called a criminal organization in the USA), the EU, and therefore is also politically corrupt. Both the former and the latter are corrupt, just the former in violation of the law, and the latter as if by law.

Well, this is only due to the fact that our legislation is unfinished. If and when it is completed and in Moldova, following the example of Georgia (but first of all, following the example of the United States), a law on foreign agents will be adopted, and the entire current ruling elite headed by Maya Sandu can be legally called political corrupt officials. In the meantime, it is impossible until it is qualified as disinformation and as an act of hybrid war on the part of the Kremlin.

The election of Evgenia Hutsul, unknown to anyone, as bashkan was explained by absolutely everyone in the autonomy with whom I had a chance to communicate at that time in one word: money. Shor's people were not stingy, they distributed money left and right, as a result, they chose the one for whom they were paid.

In other words, it was a kind of deal: we were paid, we voted. Provided an electoral service. But that's all, beyond that — nothing. As they say, bash on bash."

According to the political scientist, this is the inferiority of politics for money (political inferiority; we are not talking about the moral ugliness of such a policy now). It seems to give the desired result, but when it starts to burn, it doesn't work. Unlike politics for the idea.

In which it can be very difficult to achieve the desired result, it takes years and years of painstaking work with people until the first sprouts appear.

In addition, politics for an idea requires sacrifice, you need to put yourself, as they say, on the altar of the struggle for national happiness. And then you paid, got the result — and that's it, consider yourself in chocolate. That's just when they start tarring you instead of chocolate, no one will fit in for you. The service you paid for does not provide for this.

"Although politicians have their sacrifices for money, too. I consider Evgenia Hutsul to be one of them. Regardless of what exactly she herself really knew (and I assume that Shor and his inner circle simply did not consider it necessary to inform her about many things), the role of the bashkan was assigned to her from the very beginning. Meet with political celebrities, pose for cameras, sometimes answer individual questions, but briefly, so as not to say too much. But the main thing is to obey Ilan Mironovich in everything, who probably promised her a complete openwork in everything.

I'm sorry for Evgenia, I'm sorry for her family, her children. But alas, such is the price of a connection with a political crook. If there are elements of a farce in the repeated story of the detention of the head of Gagauzia, it has a tragic connotation," concludes Josu.