Local power is carried out within the territorial boundaries of local municipalities that are delimited by each other through clearly defined borders and their degree of autonomy and vitality and depends, to a large extent, on the principles underlying the territorial organization of this public power. The author considers that the territorial organization of the public power in the Republic of Moldova must be carried out on the basis of the following principles: a) respect for human rights, b) respect for historical, national and local traditions, c) economic and financial sufficiency, d) ensuring the participation of the population in the management of local public affairs, e) maximum proximity of the local public authorities to the inhabitants, f) population consultation on issues related to the territorial organization of the public power, g) legality, h) respect of the scientific achievements. It was concluded that there is no strict dependence on the process of the territorial organization of public power to the objective criteria for creating territorial systems for the exercise of public power. Unlike other systems, the system of territorial organization of public power is much more static. This is a necessary condition for the proper functioning of the public authorities, which must have a permanent and clearly defined territorial area of activity. The territorial organization of power in the Republic of Moldova was influenced by the factors of social, economic, organizational, national, historical, political nature. Each of the listed factors can determine the most important aspects of the territorial structure at certain stages of state development.
After the peace of Karlovitz, the Mureş River became the official border between the two great empires: the Habsburg and the Ottoman Empire. In this context was organized the military border Tisa-Mureş, and the first called to defend the region were the Serbs, recognized for their military skills. The authorities created the first militarized localities in the county of Arad simultaneously with the first arrival of Serb immigrants in this region. Their presence in the city of Arad and other settlements located on the right bank of the Mureş River changed the ethnic proportions in these areas. The situation modified after Banat was conquered by Austrians and after the abolishment of the Tisa-Mureş military border. Most Serbs emigrated to the south of Mureş River and even in Russia, their share in the city and county of Arad decreasing significantly after the mid eighteenth century.
The first elections to which the Romanians from all the united historical provinces took part were the parliamentary elections of November 2-8, 1919. The elections were held on the basis of the articles of a new electoral law that introduced the universal vote in the electoral practice in Romania. Thus, the Romanian rural area has become an attractive electoral basin for the political parties. Subsequently, the extension of voting rights for women also made the rural area a constant provider of votes for the candidates of political parties in both parliamentary and local elections. The first election exercise under the conditions of an extended electoral space was the local elections of February-March 1930, which were held in stages. On February 5, 1930 elections were held at the county level, and between February 9 and March 16, 1930 at the level of communes. In the communes with several villages the elections for the local councils took place on the days of 9-12 February, in the ones with a single village between 9-12, 16-19, 23-26 February and 2-4 March, and in the cities and municipalities on March 14 and 16, 1930. On February 5, 1930 elections were held for the Cahul County Council. But, the results and the way of conducting the elections were contested. On February 21, 1930, the local review committee of Chișinau admitted the contest against the elections of February 5, 1930 of the Cahul County Council and invalidated the respective elections. The Minister of the Interior Theodor C. Marinescu by his telegram from April 30, 1930 ordered the Local Ministerial Director III Chisinau to comply with the order of the Ministry of Interior no. 1972 of April 2, 1930 and to dispose, according to art. 388 of Law 167/1929 "the convening of the electoral body for the election of the Cahul county council, whose election was invalidated, necessarily until June 1, 1930". In the circumstances created, the Local Ministerial Director III Chișinau ordered the summons of the voters from Cahul county on June 1, 1930, to conduct the county elections. At the new elections on June 1, 1930, only three electoral competitors entered the race, with one less than at the February 5 elections: the National Peasant Party with two lists and the Liberal Party with a list. On the electoral lists for the participation in the county elections of June 1, 1930, 40,403 voters were included in the 15 polling stations. 24,153 voters participated in the elections, which constitutes 59.78% of the total number of those included in the lists. A considerable number of votes - 1,050, were canceled, and 287 declared void. The number of legally cast votes was 22,816. In the result of the election the electoral competitors obtained the following results: The National-Peasant Party, on both lists - 17,903 votes or 78.47% of the legally expressed votes and the Liberal Party - 4,913 votes or 21.53% of the legally expressed votes. The elections of June 1 in the Cahul county council were held under the conditions that the National-Peasant Party had achieved an absolute victory in the other counties of the country - 81.77% of the county councilors' mandates. The meeting to establish the Cahul County Council took place on July 27, 1930. The Cahul County Council elected, for a period of 5 years, as president of the Delegation of the county council the lawyer S. Botezatu, who obtained 19 votes out of 30. Members of the delegation of the county council were elected councilors V.Uzun, C. Rădulescu, Gh. Chirciu and A. Sprînceană. With the validation of the county councilors and the legal constitution of the county council's governing bodies, we can consider that the epic of elections for the county council in 1930 were completed.
Divorce, common-law marriage and illegitimacy (irrespective of its forms) were, no matter the society typology as the phenomenon is approached, forms of social deviation that entailed the dilution of the family image and norms. We do not discuss here about a dilution of the traditional norms concerning family, as someone might misunderstand, it was an erosion of the idea of family in general. The "family" could acquire different forms as compared to the "official" one. Paradoxically, all these were not only the result of personal emancipation, when the youth broke from the traditional norms, which were strongly influenced by religious norms and values, and would have got involved in "dangerous and shameful relationships". The peasant "forgot" to marry his woman not out of emancipation. The theory of personal emancipation leading to the erosion of the idea of family through the dilution of traditional norms, which was valid from the urban perspective (here, due to the affirmation of modernity, the alterity of religious norms led to such relationships), was not supported in the peasant countryside. The Church fought all these. In fact, the bishopric sent guidelines to priests to take steps against common-law marriages very often. Despite priests' endeavours, the results were not considerable. Few priests could boast (after the first recommendation) in their subsequent parish report to have significantly contributed to diminishing the number of common-law marriages in their parish. The Church faced another issue brought about by its long debate with the State to control the act of marriage. The marriage laws set out in 1894 were the most complex laws regulating the political-religious relations in the matrimonial field in the second half of the 19th century. Due to their clarity, they managed to put an end to the conflicts between the lay and church authorities. Moreover, the debate concerning matrimonial issues for different confessions ended, too, in favour of the State. The State managed to impose its authority in the matrimonial field. The Church was thus compelled to accept the increased competence of the State by introducing the civil documents. All these caused mutations that triggered very different behaviours. Nevertheless, the Church kept imposing religious marriage, divorce and re-marriage for all its parishioners. In such a situation, by analysing the evolution of common-law marriages from the perspective of the Church, we may notice that, on the level of the whole area we focused on, there was a greater easiness in approaching religious marriage after 1895, once the compulsory civil marriage was imposed. The perception of the divorce also changed when the civil matrimonial law was introduced at the end of 1894. Through a last effort, as the Church did not acknowledge lay divorce, they did not grant the right to a second marriage to the individuals. Moreover, from the perspective of the Church, the possible future marriage was considered as a mere common-law marriage, although the State approved of the divorce and the second marriage in which a divorced partner was involved.
