>Expect a riot


For all the talk of contagion across the region, the Economist’s new Political Instability Index offers (almost certainly quite right) contrasting assessment of the political prospects of Central and East European states in the global downturn. Small, ethnically homogeneous, successfully reforming states with strong social safety nets and good(-ish) economic fundamentals such as Slovenia and the Czech Republic, are rated alongside Germany and Japan as among the most internationally stable political systems. Ukraine’s uncertain national identity, high levels of inequality and corruption and proximity to a restive and powerful Russia, by contrast, see it rated alongside African and South American states as the amongst the world’s highest risks for political instability. Expect a riot. Other Central and East Europe states get more mixed scores. Estonia’s success in democratic and market reform, for example, was offset by the higher risks associated with its ethnic diversity and weak welfare state. Poland’s traditions of protest politics also see it rated as moderately risky, despite otherwise good indicators.

The methodology is a fairly standard political science approach of producing baskets of variables covering different risk factos, some structural and longer term, others more short-term and conjunctural. It’s not sure whether all these have been crunched in some regression analysis or totted up some other way (the former, I suspect), but their high risk rating of Moldova seems to have been quickly borne out with the violence surrounding Moldova’s elections, won by the incumbent Moldovan Communists. The opposition cry foul and claim a stolen election – the first move for any Coloured Revolution scenario – and students vent their frustration on some government office equipment (PCs thrown through a window). I don’t know enough about Moldovan politics to make any judgements, but I suspect that if the PCM did steal the elections they probably didn’t need to.

2 responses to “>Expect a riot”

  1. Julien Frisch says :

    >What would you define as “they didn’t need to”?Seeing the final results announced today (unimedia.info), they have 59 or 60 seats in the parliament, which means one or two votes fewer than they’d need to elect a new president on their own (without votes from the opposition). So they could have “needed” some more votes to get this full majority…

  2. Sean Hanley says :

    >Thanks for the comment. Well, I guess I lazily meant that I suspected the PCM had sufficient popular support, not need to blatantly manipulate the elections (categorised free and fair by OECD observers), although admittedly I didn’t know about this rather interesting constitutional provision you mention and I wasn’t aware of the scale of the student demonstrations when I wrote the post. Still, unless Moldova’s liberal opposition parties have fantastic political discipline, coming one seat short (PCM won 60 seats) strikes me as pretty much on target. Even in the perhaps less murky world of Czech politics inducing one legislator to switch sides is pretty much all in a day’s work for the winning party. Whether Moldova is democratic in some more exacting sense that just running minimally free and fair elections – indeed, whether any so-called ‘dominant party systems’ (currently a trendy topic in comparative politics, I would add) can be considered fully democratic – is, of course, an interesting question. Can’t help feeling that the Coloured Revolution template is a now a bit of busted flush, though.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: