NationStates Jolt Archive

So by "Chávez is an admirer of Franco" you mean "Third parties quoted in an interview have accused him of being similar to Franco in his political style"?

Hugo has said so, more than once. And it's funny, because many of his countrymen had remarked on this.

I'm not sure if this is true either, but I also know that "caudillo" is a term with a history of its own in Latin America.

You're referring to Bolivarian ideals. But the ''caudillo'' title was coined by Franco back in the 1930s. He was known as ''el Caudillo de España'', as Hugo is knows as ''el Caudillo de América''. Chávez has studied his trajectory and it is well known that Franco was also an admirer of Simón Bolívar, the figure that inspires Chávez the most.

Why's it so hard to believe Chavez admires Franco?? I mean, they're both despots so, presumably its just want shit person admiring the other's shittyness, lol...

Seems perfectly logical to me....

Why's it so hard to believe Chavez admires Franco?? I mean, they're both despots so, presumably its just want shit person admiring the other's shittyness, lol...

Seems perfectly logical to me....

It's hard to believe, and I can understand Soheran's skepticism. I mean, who, in their right mind can admire a man who was such a despot? But he does. He may call Aznar a fascist, but that's because he blames Spanish businessmen for a failed 2002 coup d'etát. Or so he says.

The truth is, all these Latin American dictators and dictator-wannabes admire the dictators of yore. Franco himself admired both Mussolini and Hitler. It's no wonder Hugo admires him. After all, both men one was and the other is loyal admirers of Simón Bolívar.

Why's it so hard to believe Chavez admires Franco?? I mean, they're both despots so, presumably its just want shit person admiring the other's shittyness, lol...

Seems perfectly logical to me....

It would not surprise me if Stalin admired Hitler. And great Mao, the super-communist in favor of nuking America, seemed to dump The Soviets awfully quickly when the U.S. offered him its hand; ideologies are just about control. Still, Chávez seemed more idealistic to me; I failed to actually study him closely.

Anyway, Nan: Though it is true Franco was one of the 20th Century's asswipes (in such company as Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin), is there anything you have against the Hugo Chávez's method of governing, or is it solely whom he holds in high regard that irks you?

Anyway, Nan: Though it is true Franco was one of the 20th Century's asswipes (in such company as Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin), is there anything you have against the Hugo Chávez's method of governing, or is it solely whom he holds in high regard that irks you?

I really got nothing against Hugo or his methods of governing on the sole fact that, whatever I may think of him, this opinion is inconsequential to the future of his country. It is his people and solely them the ones whose idea of Chávez truly has any weight. It would be presumptuous of me to say anything on the subject. I wouldn't like a Portuguese telling me how my country should be run or if he thinks my president is doing it wrong or not.

I really got nothing against Hugo or his methods of governing on the sole fact that, whatever I may think of him, this opinion is inconsequential to the future of his country. It is his people and solely them the ones whose idea of Chávez truly has any weight. It would be presumptuous of me to say anything on the subject. I wouldn't like a Portuguese telling me how my country should be run or if he thinks my president is doing it wrong or not.

That makes sense. Did you ever impugn former President Bush?

That makes sense. Did you ever impugn former President Bush?

I find that topic distasteful. My country is over-reaching with this, I will always say it. I don't think Garzón has come to any decision.

That makes sense. Did you ever impugn former President Bush?

I was actually thinking, "well, we're used to people doing that to us", lol...

I find that topic distasteful. My country is over-reaching with this, I will always say it. I don't think Garzón has come to any decision.

It is not exactly your problem, I suppose.

Edit: Please choose a smaller picture of Reagan.

Thank you.

It is not exactly your problem, I suppose.

Edit: Please choose a smaller picture of Reagan.

Thank you.

I already said it, you know. GWB is the US's problem. You're all the ones, in my opinion, who are entitled to judge him. As I told Gravlen one time, Spain does not has the moral backing to start a witch hunt against Bush and his goons. We had as much to be blamed for for both Afghanistan and Iraq as the US did. It's, once again, hypocritical. But this topic isn't for that.:wink:

That's a whole lotta approval.

*snip*

Was that, honestly, necessary? I mean really...

Was that, honestly, necessary? I mean really...

I don't think 1 extra extra extra extra extra extra large picture of Reagan really captures the essence of how much he approves, you need at least two.

lol week ban for seeing Reagan's wrinkly face ultra close up.

lol week ban for seeing Reagan's wrinkly face ultra close up.

Think of the children!

Snip.

Fine, TAI. But I want to add one last point:

When I said you can't support a dictatorship without supporting torture and other things, it's due to the fact that dictatorships NEED those things to survive. They need an "enemy". They need a lack of free speech. They need a face upon which the boot goes. By their very definition, dictatorships are oppressive. I am stopping our bickering, but don't for one moment take it to imply that I accept the notion that it's reasonable to - for any reason - replace democratically-elected regimes with dictatorships, or that I accept that it's reasonable to admire an evil action for one goal and deride a less evil action for another. I may treat you as a human being, which is more than Pinochet ever did for his political opponents, but, unless your opinions change, I'll disagree with you even when I'm dead.

For the safety of my country and for mine own - so I never get my fingernails ripped off, so I never have my freedoms curtailed, so I never get dipped in a bathrub full of human feces (Stroessner), so I never get disappeared - is that I will keep hammering the point home that, no, dictatorships are not okay for any reason. Because if I simply accepted the discourse that "they may be needed", I may find myself in one. And that, I will never accept. Because I will NEVER be ruled by strength alone. This isn't personal, TAI. This isn't about you. This is me protecting my life, my freedom, and my rights. I live in a democracy. One that, not fifty years ago, was torturing and disappearing dissidents. Consider for one moment that people who made a living torturing other human beings are still alive here (I hope they die a slow and painful death). I will fight to keep living in a democracy, and if an ideology that I see as threatening it - an ideology that says dictatorships "may be needed" - has to die for me to keep living in a democracy, so be it. Because know this: I would die a thousand times to keep my country a democracy. And I would kill a thousand times for the same reason. Because I know what happens when it isn't one. Something which you do not.

Shut up

I hope you get bann... Oh. Right. :D

Fine, TAI. But I want to add one last point:

When I said you can't support a dictatorship without supporting torture and other things, it's due to the fact that dictatorships NEED those things to survive. They need an "enemy". They need a lack of free speech. They need a face upon which the boot goes. By their very definition, dictatorships are oppressive. I am stopping our bickering, but don't for one moment take it to imply that I accept the notion that it's reasonable to - for any reason - replace democratically-elected regimes with dictatorships, or that I accept that it's reasonable to admire an evil action for one goal and deride a less evil action for another. I may treat you as a human being, which is more than Pinochet ever did for his political opponents, but, unless your opinions change, I'll disagree with you even when I'm dead.

For the safety of my country and for mine own - so I never get my fingernails ripped off, so I never have my freedoms curtailed, so I never get dipped in a bathrub full of human feces (Stroessner), so I never get disappeared - is that I will keep hammering the point home that, no, dictatorships are not okay for any reason. Because if I simply accepted the discourse that "they may be needed", I may find myself in one. And that, I will never accept. Because I will NEVER be ruled by strength alone. This isn't personal, TAI. This isn't about you. This is me protecting my life, my freedom, and my rights. I live in a democracy. One that, not fifty years ago, was torturing and disappearing dissidents. Consider for one moment that people who made a living torturing other human beings are still alive here. I will fight to keep living in a democracy, and if an ideology that I see as threatening it - an ideology that says dictatorships "may be needed" - has to die for me to keep living in a democracy, so be it. Because know this: I would die a thousand times to keep my country a democracy. Because I know what happens when it isn't one. Something which you do not.

And yet again, you touch on the subject I have tried to convey so many times. A person cannot understand a dictatorship and what it is to live with the fear that he wrong word may cost you your life and that of your family unless he/she has lived under one. You understand this perfectly well, because Brazil was a dictatorship not too long ago. I understand it perfectly well because so was pain 30 something years ago.

But TAI, as much as you may read about dictators, you can't ever fathom what it's like. It's, as Heikoku says, nothing personal. You just cannot begin to fathom it.

And yet again, you touch on the subject I have tried to convey so many times. A person cannot understand a dictatorship and what it is to live with the fear that he wrong word may cost you your life and that of your family unless he/she has lived under one. You understand this perfectly well, because Brazil was a dictatorship not too long ago. I understand it perfectly well because so was pain 30 something years ago.

But TAI, as much as you may read about dictators, you can't ever fathom what it's like. It's, as Heikoku says, nothing personal. You just cannot begin to fathom it.

Not to mention the fact that totalitarian systems in the name of a given ideology will usually cause backlash against it.

Not to mention the fact that totalitarian systems in the name of a given ideology will usually cause backlash against it.

Indeed they always do.

Hugo has said so, more than once.

Yet you cannot find for me a source that says so.

Why's it so hard to believe Chavez admires Franco?? I mean, they're both despots so, presumably its just want shit person admiring the other's shittyness, lol...

Chávez is hardly a despot. He is authoritarian-minded and egotistical, certainly, but that does not amount to the same thing: certainly it is in no sense comparable to Franco's despotism, which was extremely bloody from the start in a way far beyond Chávez's (or even Pinochet's) league.

Nor does it make any sense ideologically. Franco despised (and brutally repressed) the socialist left; Chávez appropriates its rhetoric and its symbolism.

Nor does it make any sense ideologically. Franco despised (and brutally repressed) the socialist left; Chávez appropriates its rhetoric and its symbolism.
I fully agree; el Presidente makes a huge deal of the 'mythology' and 'heroes' of the Left, and one of the major events in its history is the Spanish Civil War.

It's be like Chávez dissing Che.

Yet you cannot find for me a source that says so.



Chávez is hardly a despot. He is authoritarian-minded and egotistical, certainly, but that does not amount to the same thing: certainly it is in no sense comparable to Franco's despotism, which was extremely bloody from the start in a way far beyond Chávez's (or even Pinochet's) league.

Nor does it make any sense ideologically. Franco despised (and brutally repressed) the socialist left; Chávez appropriates its rhetoric and its symbolism.

Chávez's admiration of Franco has nothing to do with his political ideals or how much of a despot he was while being dictator of Spain. He admired Franco's military tactics and the way he carried himself as a leader.

http://www.correodelcaroni.com/content/view/7942/150/

This is what padre Jesús Gazo, spiritual counselor to Hugo Chávez had to say in 1999 about Chávez's idolatry of Franco.

En esa entrevista Gazo dice que coincide con Chávez por estar en contra del neoliberalismo y a favor del socialismo, pero también confiesa que su ídolo era el dictador militar de España Francisco Franco, conocido gobernante fascista que mantuvo con puño de hierro y en el mayor atraso a España durante más de 30 años.

He admired Franco's military tactics and the way he carried himself as a leader.

So why do you care?

I mean, if it comes to that, I think Lenin and Stalin were both pretty brilliant at outsmarting and outmaneuvering their political opponents. Robert E. Lee was a pretty impressive general. Adolf Hitler seems to have been a fairly courageous soldier. Napoleon implemented some important reforms in Europe. So did Mao in China.

But I don't approve of what any of those people did... at least not in terms of the blood they shed and/or the causes they fought for. So what difference does my acknowledgment of certain outstanding characteristics or even beneficial elements make?

But I don't approve of what any of those people did... at least not in terms of the blood they shed and/or the causes they fought for. So what difference does my acknowledgment of certain outstanding characteristics or even beneficial elements make?

None whatsoever. It makes no difference to me. As I already posted, Chávez is the president of Venezuela. Venezuelans are the ones entitled to care about their leader. They're the only ones entitled to make an opinion of this subject, if ever. I have always found this interesting, though. Hugo Chávez calls Aznar a fascist, but admires a fascist leader.

Hugo Chávez calls Aznar a fascist, but admires a fascist leader.
Your posts imply that Chávez admires the facist aspects of a fascist leader; rather disingenuous if all you've got is a 'spiritual advisor' stating that Chávez thinks/thought Franco was a competent tactician.

You seem to be (deliberately?) conflating a statement of fact with a political opinion.

Your posts imply that Chávez admires the facist aspects of a fascist leader; rather disingenuous if all you've got is a 'spiritual advisor' stating that Chávez thinks/thought Franco was a competent tactician.

You seem to be (deliberately?) conflating a statement of fact with a political opinion.

No, I am not deliberately conflating a statement of fact with a political opinion. But you're more than welcome to believe whatever suits you best.

No, I am not deliberately conflating a statement of fact with a political opinion.
OK, but it's a poor choice of words.

It's like me taking your quote:

...the Greeks were magnificent in all they did.
And saying, 'Nanatsu admires slavery', when you actually mean you admire the Hellenic poetry, drama, philosophy, etc.

OK, but it's a poor choice of words.

It's like me taking your quote:


And saying, 'Nanatsu admires slavery', when you actually mean you admire the Hellenic poetry, drama, philosophy, etc.

Fair enough.

...
Btw, ignoring this?
...

Just like you keep ignoring the simple fact that Moldovais not an example of a communist government, and that there has yet to be any evidence of voter fraud, or any of your other allegations.

I know everyone else got distracted with your Pinochet pony show. But rather than have you hijack your own thread, I'm just going to repeat myself: do you have any evidence for any of these allegations?

http://www.france24.com/en/20090412-opposition-vows-new-protests-over-alleged-election-fraud-voronin

Reports from The Electoral Commission states "voters who died 15-20 years ago" in the voter list:

Wrong. One member of the electoral commision claims that these names are on the voter list.

From your own article:

The electoral commission approved Saturday the final results of the polls, which will be handed to the constitutional court. But three of the panel's nine members charged that there were "serious violations."

One of the three members, Mikhail Busulac, said voter lists included people who "died 15 to 20 years ago" and denounced the "abusive use of administration resources by the party in power."

Are there dead people on the voter lists? I don't know. But I do know one thing: the opposition parties would love to find these names. But you know what: the opposition parties didn't find any names of dead people when they looked at the voter list.

Again, from your link:

He said the election commission agreed to let the opposition inspect voter lists, but the four days allowed was insufficient for the task.

Why don't you just make a list of all the people who claim fraud but can't prove it, and then make a separate list of those who actually have evidence?

Well it is a long standing fact that the corporations do have a tendecy to pay off people to do their bidding

It depends on your definition of communism. If you mean Soviet Union style, then yes, I suppose it is really a good thing. If, however, you actually mean socialism (often used interchangably, but it's a more central outlook, such as old labour) Then it's a bad thing - socialism is probably the fairest way to run a country in terms of civil rights and welfare.

Moldova detainees abused, says UN official

Hundreds of young people detained after anti-government protests in Moldova have been subjected to "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment and denied access to legal advice, the United Nations says.

Detainees described being beaten with clubs, water bottles, fists and feet, according to a confidential report that includes evidence provided by the UN human rights adviser in the country and seen by the Financial times.
The report says there is abundant evidence prisoners were being held in inhumane conditions with 25 to 28 individuals in 8m-square cells, denied food and given only limited access to water and basic sanitary facilities.

Hundreds of young people in Chisinau were arrested last week after protests against the outcome of elections 10 days ago turned violent when a group of protesters stormed the parliament and presidency buildings, setting the former ablaze.

The protesters claim the Communist party, which won 49 per cent of the vote, stole the election.

The government declined to comment on the report, but referred to an earlier statement by the interior ministry that there would be no investigation into police brutality since no such cases had taken place.

Edwin Berry, the UN human rights adviser, said he had not written the report but confirmed it was based on evidence he gathered during a prison visit made on Saturday. "I did see evidence of acts of cruel and unusual punishment," he said.

The report is based on a visit to a single detention centre.

A delegation consisting of Mr Berry and representatives of the country's National Preventative Mechanism on Torture, an officially sanctioned group of human rights organisations, was denied access to two other jails, in spite of legislation that allows them to conduct unannounced visits to any detention centre.

The report stated that: "[Detainees were] brought before a judge in blocks of six [and] collectively charged . . . a template document. At [B]no time did detainees have access to a legal council."

Moldova's Constitutional Court on Sunday agreed to stage a recount of last week's election tomorrow.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9c8d44a-288b-11de-8dbf-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9c8d44a-288b-11de-8dbf-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

And yet, Pinochet you consider a great man. By the way, you never answered my other post replying to you on this subject.

If you mean Soviet Union style, then yes,

What?

What?
It was his answer to my poll, I assume:

Is this revolt against Communism good?
Now re-read his answer. Should make more sense.


And yet, Pinochet you consider a great man.
Dios mio. :p


By the way, you never answered my other post replying to you on this subject.
I thought we decided to call a truce and then you said "ok but I want to add one last thing." I didn't answer it because I thought that was your 'ok and one last thing', and then we leave it. That's why I didn't answer. :p

I thought we decided to call a truce and then you said "ok but I want to add one last thing." I didn't answer it because I thought that was your 'ok and one last thing', and then we leave it. That's why I didn't answer. :p

Fair enough. :p

So, still no evidence of voter fraud yet, eh?

So, still no evidence of voter fraud yet, eh?
Did you read the article I just posted? Because from the looks of that comment, I'd bet not.

Did you read the article I just posted?
The FT article about arrested protesters being treated badly? From what you've posted, it says nothing about election fraud.

This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/13/moldova-election-financial-collapse) article sums up much of what I feel about these shenanigans:

It is true that it reacted to last week's violence with heavy-handedness, arresting around 200 people, beating some in prison and police stations, and not releasing adequate information on who was still held and where. Foreign journalists have been blocked at the borders and access to several opposition websites as well as Facebook and Twitter has been barred, so as to obstruct protesters from mobilising.

But these abuses do not warrant calls for the government to resign, nor for the EU to back demands for a re-run of the elections. They look like sour grapes since there is no evidence of fraud large enough to have awarded the wrong party victory. The EU should urge the government to release every detainee unless there is evidence to charge particular individuals with violence. But it should also urge opposition parties to accept the election results. Moldova's European image has not been helped by last week's chaos. Exaggerated claims of fraud are equally out of place.

Though I'd be more at odds with the treatment of protesters than Mr. Steele is, I think his point about fraud seems dead-on. Complain about government's abusing their peoples, by all means; I wholeheartedly encourage it. But claiming non-existent voter fraud does nobody good.

The problem here is treatment of protesters, and from any examination of the recent mishandling by the UK police of G20 protesters, this is obviously not a problem with 'communism'.

Did you read the article I just posted? Because from the looks of that comment, I'd bet not.

Yes. I read it carefully. I saw no evidence of voter fraud. I read the testimony of someone who witnessed police brutality against the rioters while they were in prison. While horrific and demanding legal action, this is not evidence of voter fraud.

The FT article about arrested protesters being treated badly? From what you've posted, it says nothing about election fraud.
It says:
Moldova's Constitutional Court on Sunday agreed to stage a recount of last week's election tomorrow.
The article was written on the 14th, that means on the 15th there should be some kind of re-count, going by that article . . . so let's watch for updates on the election.
Yes. I read it carefully. I saw no evidence of voter fraud. I read the testimony of someone who witnessed police brutality against the rioters while they were in prison. While horrific and demanding legal action, this is not evidence of voter fraud.
It says:

Moldova's Constitutional Court on Sunday agreed to stage a recount of last week's election tomorrow.

....

It says:

That quote is not evidence of voter fraud either.

It says:
Moldova's Constitutional Court on Sunday agreed to stage a recount of last week's election tomorrow.
A recount does not constitute election fraud. When you have evidence, come back to us.

Speculation will not do.

It says:

The article was written on the 14th, that means on the 15th there should be some kind of re-count, going by that article . . . so let's watch for updates on the election.

It says:

Fine: If the recount gives the Communist Party the victory, will the straw-grasping stop?

A recount does not constitute election fraud. When you have evidence, come back to us.

Speculation will not do.

That quote is not evidence of voter fraud either.

Jesus Christ, will you two chill. I was showing that the re-count (what everyone has been waiting for) hasn't happend yet (or just happend and information isn't released yet), not that the re-count not having been completed = voter fraud. :rolleyes:

Jesus Christ, will you two chill. I was showing that the re-count (what everyone has been waiting for) hasn't happend yet (or just happend and information isn't released yet), not that the re-count not having been completed = voter fraud. :rolleyes:

Then why did you present it as evidence of voter fraud?

It's moments like these when I have trouble believing you are in university.

Fine: If the recount gives the Communist Party the victory, will the straw-grasping stop?
If the re-count [is legit] gives the Communist Party the victory, then I guess that's it. It seems like the Communist Party was going to win, but did commit fraud (dead voters and stuff) which increased their victory. I think, from what I've been researching, that the point was the the fraud they commited didn't change the fact that they would have won the election, unfortunately.

So yeah, if they win the re-count, then it's over. And Moldova and its people suffer, while the Communist pro-Russian elite keep the country back from from the West and away from its potential.:(

Fine: If the recount gives the Communist Party the victory, will the straw-grasping stop?

Actually this is an interesting point. TAI, what will you say if the recount shows the vote not to be a fraud?

Then why did you present it as evidence of voter fraud?
I didn't. You came in "no evidence of voter fraud yet, huh?" and I replied to that by showing you that nothing has changed yet, because we are still waiting for the results of the re-count. That's why I said this:

"The article was written on the 14th, that means on the 15th there should be some kind of re-count, going by that article . . . so let's watch for updates on the election."

So yeah, if they win the re-count, then it's over. And Moldova and its people suffer, while the Communist pro-Russian elite keep the country back from from the West and away from its potential.:(
That would be the 'Communist pro-Russian elite' who are pro-Europe (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090406/wl_afp/moldovavoteresults_20090406060517), who embrace the West, and are in charge of a liberal, free-market democracy?

And how, exactly, will Moldovan's suffer, in ways that they wouldn't if another party won?

EDIT: Though, never mind TAi. We've been through this already in the thread; the party has the word 'communist' in its title, and thus can do no good and are obviously evil.

So yeah, if they win the re-count, then it's over.

Good. Apply this line of thought to any "communist" victory you see from now on and retroactively, please. Kthxbai.

I didn't. You came in "no evidence of voter fraud yet, huh?" and I replied to that by showing you that nothing has changed yet, because we are still waiting for the results of the re-count. That's why I said this:

"The article was written on the 14th, that means on the 15th there should be some kind of re-count, going by that article . . . so let's watch for updates on the election."

If that was what you were trying to convey with our recent dialogue, I strongly suggest you work on the clarity of your writing.

So, all that to say that the answer to my question is that there is yet no evidence of voter fraud.

That would be the 'Communist pro-Russian elite' who are pro-Europe (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090406/wl_afp/moldovavoteresults_20090406060517), who embrace the West, and are in charge of a liberal, free-market democracy?


Awesome.

I understand the fear of a Stalin-esque authoritarian party ruling a country; that would indeed be a terrible thing.

But the PCRM isn't based along these lines, and Moldova is far from being a totalitarian hellhole. If anything, the country seems to be moving towars even more liberalisation of markets and, I imagine, if Moscow wasn't holding the country by the balls via its fuel supply (as it is to every East European country, no matter their political bent) it seems they'd be less on Russia's side.

That would be the 'Communist pro-Russian elite' who are pro-Europe (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090406/wl_afp/moldovavoteresults_20090406060517), who embrace the West, and are in charge of a liberal, free-market democracy?

And how, exactly, will Moldovan's suffer, in ways that they wouldn't if another party won?

EDIT: Though, never mind TAi. We've been through this already in the thread; the party has the word 'communist' in its title, and thus can do no good and are obviously evil.

Interesting tidbit from your link:

The PCM was once pro-Russian but changed course dramatically in 2005 and now seeks closer ties with the European Union, while maintaining good relations with Russia, on which it depends for, among other things, gas supplies.

My readings of Dune suggest that any party that governs Moldova will have to maintain good relations with Russia, simply to maintain fuel for their energy needs.

My readings of Dune suggest that any party that governs Moldova will have to maintain good relations with Russia, simply to maintain fuel for their energy needs.
To brutally paraphrase Herbert, 'He who controls Gazprom, controls the former Soviet Bloc'.

The phrase 'x now seeks closer ties with the European Union, while maintaining good relations with Russia, on which it depends for, among other things, gas supplies' could cover pretty much every European country east of Berlin.

I understand the fear of a Stalin-esque authoritarian party ruling a country; that would indeed be a terrible thing. But the Moldovan CP isn't based along these lines, and Moldova is far from being a totalitarian hellhole.

I don't know, they may support a temporary free market, as a transitional stage. They do call themselves Marxist-Leninists, which I find to be a little concerning.

That would be the 'Communist pro-Russian elite' who are pro-Europe (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090406/wl_afp/moldovavoteresults_20090406060517), who embrace the West, and are in charge of a liberal, free-market democracy?
They only started to become pro-EU recently because of a fight with Russia over Transdniestr, an area they want to totally control:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6052601.ece
Moldova's Communist Party was strongly pro-Russian until 2005, when it abruptedly adopted a pro-European policy amid local anger at negotiations over Transdniestr that many feared would hand too much power to Moscow.

It's leadership is still out of touch with the local population, and yes I still stand by what I said:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13447119
Moldova’s 4m population languish in a geopolitical limbo between Russia and the European Union. Most Moldovans favour Europe but the political elite, mainly Soviet-trained and Russian-speaking, has found it hard to break old ties and habits.

And how, exactly, will Moldovan's suffer, in ways that they wouldn't if another party won?
Because only a liberal party will implement the kind of reforms Moldova needs. Under the current Communist party, Moldova looks like this:

Moldova:

Freedom House: Free/Partly Free/Not Free

Index of Economic Freedom: Free/Mostly free/Mostly unfree/Unfree

Worldwide Press Freedom Index: Good situation/Satisfactory situation/Noticeable problems/Difficult situation/Very serious situation

Democracy Rating: Full democracy/Flawed democracy/Hybrid regime/Authoritarian

Moldova is Europe's only communist state and one of its poorest, with an average monthly salary of only $350. Thousands of its people seek work abroad to support their families, sending back $1.6 billion in remittances last year - about the same amount as the state budget.


EDIT: Though, never mind TAi. We've been through this already in the thread; the party has the word 'communist' in its title, and thus can do no good and are obviously evil.
You said (before the edit) you'd worry if it was becoming too authoritarian? How about this? (Oh, actually you said that in a different post, sorry)

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13447119
The protesters are loosely tied to established opposition parties. They are cross about the election and even more annoyed by the outgoing president, Vladimir Voronin. Mr Voronin has stated that, although he would step down in accordance with the constitution’s term limit, he would stay in politics as a “Moldovan Deng Xiaoping”. That seemed to suggest no change from the economic and strategic failures of the past two decades,

I don't know, they may support a temporary free market, as a transitional stage. They do call themselves Marxist-Leninists, which I find to be a little concerning.
I see no indication of their wishing to return to USSR-style authoritarianism; for one, EU membership seems to be a big thing for the PCRM.

If it was truly Communistic, it wouldn't even be in the political process...

I see no indication of their wishing to return to USSR-style authoritarianism; for one, EU membership seems to be a big thing for the PCRM.

Of course, but I dispute your claim that they are pro liberal free market. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Good. Apply this line of thought to any "communist" victory you see from now on and retroactively, please. Kthxbai.
I would, however, hope that they have a revolution against their communist party and the policies that have kept the country as the asshole of Europe for the last two decades or so, though.

I would, however, hope that they have a revolution against their communist party and the policies that have kept the country as the asshole of Europe for the last two decades or so, though.

Perhaps they could simply have opposition parties that were worth voting for. Then they wouldn't need to have any of the violence associated with a civil war or revolution.

But for some reason you hope there is violence. Why is that?

Perhaps they could simply have opposition parties that were worth voting for. Then they wouldn't need to have any of the violence associated with a civil war or revolution.

But for some reason you hope there is violence. Why is that?
Violence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution

They only started to become pro-EU recently because of a fight with Russia over Transdniestr, an area they want to totally control
Transnistria declared independence in 1990. The PCRM was founded in 1994.

How could the party not be 'only' pro-EU recently?


...only a liberal party will implement the kind of reforms Moldova needs. Under the current Communist party, Moldova looks like this:

Moldova:

Freedom House: Free/Partly Free/Not Free

Index of Economic Freedom: Free/Mostly free/Mostly unfree/Unfree

Worldwide Press Freedom Index: Good situation/Satisfactory situation/Noticeable problems/Difficult situation/Very serious situation

Democracy Rating: Full democracy/Flawed democracy/Hybrid regime/Authoritarian
The above describes the UK and the US perfectly well as Moldova, apart from the Index of Economic Freedom's take on their economic freedom. The IEF, construed by the WSJ and conservative thinktank The Heritage Foundation, regards places such as India and Brazil as 'mostly unfree'.

You can't hold up a pro-free market analysis of countries that implement some socialist policies as some indicator of terrible authoritarianism.

You said (before the edit) you'd worry if it was becoming too authoritarian? How about this? (Oh, actually you said that in a different post, sorry)
That's not too cool, but what has this got to do with communism?

I mean, that's the raison d'être of this thread, right? If you're 'simply' saying that authoritarian measures put in place by governments aren't cool, I'm happy to agree with you... but this thread isn't titled **Long Live Anti-Authoritarianism!**

Of course, but I dispute your claim that they are pro liberal free market. That doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm not saying they are are pro-free market, I'm saying they are in charge of a country which is so.

From what I can tell, they seem to be market socialists. Unfortunately , I can't read Moldovan or Russian, so I can't back it's claims up, but the PCRM's WikiP page states it's actually privatised previously state-owned industries.

EDIT: My main point being, I don't see the PCRM centralising and socialising all economic activity anytime soon, especially not if they wish (as they seem to sincerely do) to join the EU.

I am a Communist....Council Communist/Anarcho-Syndicalist. I do not appreciate this one bit. I can almost guarantee that 80% of the people on this planet, let alone the US do not know what Communism IS. First off, the USSR and its buffer-states were all state-CAPITALIST countries. Here's why:
-The party was the ELITE class, ergo they had an elite class
-They all had a monetary system
-They weren't democratic
-The had imperialistic tendencies
-They followed the majority of Lenin's precedents and many of my fellow Left Communist comrades and I will state that he DISTORTED a lot of Marx's words.

All you have to do is look stuff up. There are various branches of Communism. I'll state the main branches first, then some derivatives of the ideology.

Main branches:
Leninism*
Stalinism*
Maoism*
Libertarian Marxists/Communist Left:
Council Communism( Anton Pannekoek)
World Socialism
Anarcho-Communism
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Luxembourgism (Rosa Luxembourg)
Democratic Socialism
Autonomism
Utopian Socialism
etc.

Notice how I placed the stars (*) next to the first three. This indicates the typical "communist" countries that you are familiar with, the ones you learned about in high school. All they do is paint their rusted metal red and call it Communism, but that doesn't mean it is.

Some derivatives of Communist ideology:
-Anarchy
-IWW (Anarcho-Syndicalist derivative)
-Anarcho-Syndicalism of itself can be claimed as a derivative of Anarcho-Communism according to some resources
-First International
-Collectivist Anarchism

There's much that I didn't list here...that's because there is A LOT of info. If these bloody Capitalists weren't so damn power-hungry, one could major in Communism with all of the history and information on the subject. There were many idealists before Karl Marx that contributed to these ideals before he slapped a name to it. So before you criticize my belief system, do the research.

In fact, I'll give you a head start: Marxists.org

Violence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution

I applaud the actions of those who choose peaceful means of changing their government.

Tell me, why do you think these movements aren't occurring in such a widespread manner in Moldova?

I am a Communist....Council Communist/Anarcho-Syndicalist. I do not appreciate this one bit. I can almost guarantee that 80% of the people on this planet, let alone the US do not know what Communism IS. First off, the USSR and its buffer-states were all state-CAPITALIST countries. Here's why:
-The party was the ELITE class, ergo they had an elite class
-They all had a monetary system
-They weren't democratic
-The had imperialistic tendencies
-They followed the majority of Lenin's precedents and many of my fellow Left Communist comrades and I will state that he DISTORTED a lot of Marx's words.
I don't see how the above show the USSR to be a capitalist country.

One can be classist, imperialistic, non-democratic, have a market-system, ignore Marx and still not be capitalist.

The above describes the UK and the US perfectly well

Freedom house rates those countries as free.

Freedom house rates those countries as free.
It would, what with its conception of freedom being the US. (I've discussed this previously with TAi here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14653819#post14653819).)

What I meant was I have no qualms in describing the US or the UK as having 'noticeable problems' with their freedom of press, and as 'flawed democracies'.

I would, however, hope that they have a revolution against their communist party

Because you love democracy so much...

:rolleyes:

They cannot be Communistic/Socialistic if they do not follow the guidelines either. So then what would they be classified as? In Capitalism, what makes it such is the presence of a class society, a currency, and social Darwinist tendencies incorporated into its policies. The USSR was not Communistic by any means. Imperialism is one of the main things that drives Capitalism. Feudal Capitalism, 1920s Capitalism, you name it. It is only that in current days, countries allow the corporations to take care of it, not the politicians, hence there may not be warfare, but there results corporate Globalization in its place.

I'm not saying they are are pro-free market, I'm saying they are in charge of a country which is so.

From what I can tell, they seem to be market socialists. Unfortunately , I can't read Moldovan or Russian, so I can't back it's claims up, but the PCRM's WikiP page states it's actually privatised previously state-owned industries.

EDIT: My main point being, I don't see the PCRM centralising and socialising all economic activity anytime soon, especially not if they wish (as they seem to sincerely do) to join the EU.

I've been reading an English copy of their program, it does seem to be their intent:

http://upload.moldova.org/politicom/partide/pcrm/programul-politic-pcrm-eng.pdf

For instance -

Economical:
• State regulation in developing strategic branches of industry, which are to be based on socialist production principles. Simultaneously, entrepreneurship in small business, agriculture, trade and services may develop;
• Fighting against corruption, against economic enslavery of the country in the form of foreign credits, against the sale of the country resources and loss of its intellectual potential, which turn the country into an appendix of other countries;
4
• Reforming fiscal policy and elaboration of state programs aimed to support domestic producers in concrete branches of economy (firstly to scientific and high-tech productions), introducing taxation on preferential terms for domestic producers;
• Drafting legislation on land. It will declare land public property, which is transferred for unlimited use to collective and peasant's farms, as well as for personal, horticular, and woodland plots, and could be inherited and leased. The state will assist the farmers in working the land. The land may not be purchased or sold and may not be in private property;
• State control over the activity of commercial banks, financial groups, foundations, other financial and credit institutions.
Social:
• Abolishing unemployment, restoring rights of the citizens of the Republic of Moldova to labor, rest, free medical assistance and various types of education;
• Passing and enforcing legislation guaranteeing minimum living to all strata of the society, permanent indexation of salaries, pensions, stipends, and other payments according to the inflation rate; as well as the right to housing;
• State support in boosting science, education, culture, and comprehensive resolution of environmental problems;
• State support to family, motherhood and childhood, restoring the network of children and youth rehabilitation institutions.

So, not completely communist, but hardly liberal free market either.

It would, what with its conception of freedom being the US. (I've discussed this previously with TAi here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14653819#post14653819).)

What I meant was I have no qualms in describing the US or the UK as having 'noticeable problems' with their freedom of press, and as 'flawed democracies'.

If you apply international standards however, the problems are likely far worse in Moldova.

Because you love democracy so much...


Of course he does.

But only when the demos knows whats good for them and elects guys who agree with TAI economically.

Moldovan makes me weep...just another country distorting my views.

In Capitalism, what makes it such is the presence of a class society, a currency, and social Darwinist tendencies incorporated into its policies.
What makes it such is a capitalist economic system.

The USSR was not Communistic by any means.
It certainly wasn't the final-stage communism Marx hazily envisioned, no. But this doesn't mean it was a capitalist state.


I've been reading an English copy of their program, it does seem to be their intent:

http://upload.moldova.org/politicom/partide/pcrm/programul-politic-pcrm-eng.pdf
Ahh, well done!

Exactly what I was looking for.

<snip>

So, not completely communist, but hardly liberal free market either.
Aye. They seem to support a form of market socialism that will gradually move towards communism.

Aye. They seem to support a form of market socialism that will gradually move towards communism.

Yeah. I'm a bit worried about their Rosy picture of the 'Great October Soviet Socialst Revolution' and the history of the USSR, but oh well.

It would be interesting to see them transition into something decidedly socialist or communist without any bloodshed.

Never been done before, if I recall correctly.

Yeah. I'm a bit worried about their Rosy picture of the 'Great October Soviet Socialst Revolution' and the history of the USSR, but oh well.
Though, they don't paint it as all happyhappyjoyjoy:

Though, together with the positive changes in the economic and socio-political life of the republic as well as SSSR as a whole, some problems occurred, requiring serious improvement of the social ties. By the 80s the soviet society was undergoing a crisis, generated mainly by the
crisis of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Confident in security of their positions, communist leaders continued to ignore the realities of the time, turned the party into a "conceited party", thus dooming the party. "Gorbachev's perestroika" supposedly intended to renew the socialism, in reality meant a departure from socialism.
A bit generous, yes.

But at least they aren't stating their undying love for Stalin.

But at least they aren't stating their undying love for Stalin.

But they seem to ignore things like the red terror under Lenin. I don't think that this party will do anything like that of course, I just don't think they are... particularly competent.

But they seem to ignore things like the red terror under Lenin. I don't think that this party will do anything like that of course, I just don't think they are... particularly competent.
I should have emphasised the sarcasm I tried to express with "A bit generous".

Competent? Perhaps not. But authoritarian election-thieves? From the evidence, hardly.

Competent? Perhaps not. But authoritarian election-thieves? From the evidence, hardly.

Still, although I have no direct evidence, in my opinion, I predict this party will become pretty corrupt and not particularly efficient, given the background to people like Vladimir Voronin. But you never know.

Still, although I have no direct evidence, in my opinion, I predict this party will become pretty corrupt and not particularly efficient, given the background to people like Vladimir Voronin. But you never know.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next elections.

Still, although I have no direct evidence, in my opinion, I predict this party will become pretty corrupt and not particularly efficient, given the background to people like Vladimir Voronin. But you never know.

That's not just opinion and you do have evidence to back that up. Given that the Communists have been controlling Moldova for the past 2 decades or so, we can look at at Moldova's corruption index from Transparency International (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008)

Moldova ranks 109th out of 180.

2008 CPI score: 2.9 out of 10 (10 being no corruption)

Surveys used: 7

Confidence range: 2.4 - 3.7


The only European countries ranked worse than that (for corruption) are Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. Also, in terms of efficient, well what do you want to look at? Moldova is and has been the poorest country in Europe and the Communist Party has done nothing to reverse that misfortune . . .

I'll give the government credit in that after the fall of the Soviet Union it did seek economic reform, privitization and such, but most of that was in the 90's and early 2000's and has slowed down recently due to the current government inefficiency and unwillingness to seek real structural reform. Also, the political/economic/legal climate discourages foreign investors.



Privatization results in 2004 were not significant: several smaller companies and one winery were privatized in 2004, but the government postponed indefinitely the privatization of several larger state enterprises, including two electricity distribution companies. Sporadic and ineffective enforcement of the law, economic and political uncertainty, and government harassment and interference continue to discourage inflows of foreign direct investment.

In spite of some favorable background, the Republic of Moldova remains actually one of Europe's poorest nations, resisting pursuing the types of reforms that have vastly improved the economies of some of its Eastern European neighbors. The Communist Party retained political control after winning the March 2005 parliamentary elections and re-elected its leader, Vladimir Voronin, as president in collaboration with the opposition. Although the government maintains a pro-Western stance, it has had trouble pursuing structural reforms and has made little progress on the International Monetary Fund's program to attract external financial resources.

The parliament approved the government's economic growth and strategy paper in December 2004, but international financial institutions and Western investors will not be satisfied until the government begins to address fiscal adjustment, wage restraint, and payment of debt arrears. Despite the fact that the pace of privatization and industrial output has slowed, GDP growth was 7.3 percent in 2004, consumption continues to grow, and the currency continues to appreciate. The impasse in the pro-Russian Transnistria enclave, plagued by corruption and the smuggling of arms and contraband, continues despite international attempts at mediation. Moldova's fiscal burden of government score is 0.1 point better in 2005. As a result, its overall score is 0.01 point better in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Moldova

I didn't. You came in "no evidence of voter fraud yet, huh?" and I replied to that by showing you that nothing has changed yet, because we are still waiting for the results of the re-count. That's why I said this:

"The article was written on the 14th, that means on the 15th there should be some kind of re-count, going by that article . . . so let's watch for updates on the election."

So, any updates on the voter fraud issue?

You can't hold up a pro-free market analysis of countries that implement some socialist policies as some indicator of terrible authoritarianism.

If it was "pro-free market," it would rank all countries as "unfree."

If it was "pro-free market," it would rank all countries as "unfree."
The 'free' market being that of the likes of the US.

The 'free' market being that of the likes of the US.

Chumblywumbly, the Moldovan Communist party is clearly not just Communist in name . . . what did you think of this post:? ? ?

Still, although I have no direct evidence, in my opinion, I predict this party will become pretty corrupt and not particularly efficient, given the background to people like Vladimir Voronin. But you never know.

That's not just opinion and you do have evidence to back that up. Given that the Communists have been controlling Moldova for the past 2 decades or so, we can look at at Moldova's corruption index from Transparency International (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008)

Moldova ranks 109th out of 180.

2008 CPI score: 2.9 out of 10 (10 being no corruption)

Surveys used: 7

Confidence range: 2.4 - 3.7


The only European countries ranked worse than that (for corruption) are Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. Also, in terms of efficient, well what do you want to look at? Moldova is and has been the poorest country in Europe and the Communist Party has done nothing to reverse that misfortune . . .

I'll give the government credit in that after the fall of the Soviet Union it did seek economic reform, privitization and such, but most of that was in the 90's and early 2000's and has slowed down recently due to the current government inefficiency and unwillingness to seek real structural reform. Also, the political/economic/legal climate discourages foreign investors.



Privatization results in 2004 were not significant: several smaller companies and one winery were privatized in 2004, but the government postponed indefinitely the privatization of several larger state enterprises, including two electricity distribution companies. Sporadic and ineffective enforcement of the law, economic and political uncertainty, and government harassment and interference continue to discourage inflows of foreign direct investment.

In spite of some favorable background, the Republic of Moldova remains actually one of Europe's poorest nations, resisting pursuing the types of reforms that have vastly improved the economies of some of its Eastern European neighbors. The Communist Party retained political control after winning the March 2005 parliamentary elections and re-elected its leader, Vladimir Voronin, as president in collaboration with the opposition. Although the government maintains a pro-Western stance, it has had trouble pursuing structural reforms and has made little progress on the International Monetary Fund's program to attract external financial resources.

The parliament approved the government's economic growth and strategy paper in December 2004, but international financial institutions and Western investors will not be satisfied until the government begins to address fiscal adjustment, wage restraint, and payment of debt arrears. Despite the fact that the pace of privatization and industrial output has slowed, GDP growth was 7.3 percent in 2004, consumption continues to grow, and the currency continues to appreciate. The impasse in the pro-Russian Transnistria enclave, plagued by corruption and the smuggling of arms and contraband, continues despite international attempts at mediation. Moldova's fiscal burden of government score is 0.1 point better in 2005. As a result, its overall score is 0.01 point better in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Moldova

Chumblywumbly, the Moldovan Communist party is clearly not just Communist in name
I never claimed to the contrary.

...what did you think of this post:?
I think that it shows an ex-Soviet bloc country which hasn't got the strongest capitalist economy in the world - hardly a surprise - and that a modern communist party doesn't support complete privatisation of industry nor working fully with international free market institutions- even less of a surprise.

The 'free' market being that of the likes of the US.

Corporate socialism, cartelization, redistribution of wealth to the rich, massive welfare state, central banking, protectionism, subsidies, regulation, etc.?

Corporate socialism, cartelization, redistribution of wealth to the rich, massive welfare state, central banking, protectionism, subsidies, regulation, etc.?
Broadly, yes.

The IEF regards the US as 'Free' in it's economic rankings. But this 'freedom' is essentially the freedom of corporations to do business as they see fit.

As John Miller writes (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0305miller.html):

"I somehow thought that an Economic Freedom Index would showcase countries that are reducing the democratic deficits of the global economy by giving people more control over their economic lives and the institutions that govern them. In the hands of the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, Washington's foremost right-wing think tank, however, an economic freedom index merely measures corporate and entrepreneurial freedom from accountability. Upon examination, the index turns out to be a poor barometer of either freedom more broadly construed or of prosperity...

These results are not surprising, however, given the index's premise: the less a government intervenes in the economy, the higher its freedom ranking. Specifically, the index breaks "economic freedom" down into 10 components: trade policy; fiscal burden of government; level of government intervention; monetary policy; financial liberalization; banking and finance policies; labor market policies; enforcement of property rights; business, labor, and environmental regulations; and size of the black market. In other words, minimum-wage laws, environmental regulations, or requirements for transparency in corporate accounting make a country less free, whereas low business taxes, harsh debtor laws, and little or no regulation of occupational health and safety make a country more free."

Little wonder, then, that nations such as Moldova, whose governments are highly involved in the economy, are not classed as 'free' by the IEF.

Ok, so a recount has been made. The Communist party has still won, and the opposition parties say that there was no point in the re-count because the voter list includes dead voters or people voting twice, in other words a recount simply doesn't change that the voter fraud was commited.

Also, Moldova expells Romanian and foreign journalists while human rights groups complain about young people having "been detained, denied legal assistance and possibly beaten."

So in reality, nothing changes. Moldova continues to be corrupt, shitty, economically unfree and a bit too authoritarian for my liking. Yay.....:rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8004603.stm

Ok, so a recount has been made. The Communist party has still won, and the opposition parties say that there was no point in the re-count because the voter list includes dead voters or people voting twice, in other words a recount simply doesn't change that the voter fraud was commited.


A little convenient don't you think?


Also, Moldova expells Romanian and foreign journalists while human rights groups complain about young people having "been detained, denied legal assistance and possibly beaten."

So in reality, nothing changes. Moldova continues to be corrupt, shitty, economically unfree and a bit too authoritarian for my liking. Yay.....:rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8004603.stm

But do you have any basis at all to support a revolt?

So in reality, nothing changes. Moldova continues to be corrupt, shitty, economically unfree and a bit too authoritarian for my liking. Yay.....:rolleyes:

And that's why you support a coup there to install an authoritarian strongman to... ...to contradict yourself, it seems.

Communism is goood, but people are twats. So it doesn't work... Silly people. Capitalism is a bit crap, because it makes people twats. Communism and freedom can go together! But no one can be properly communist cos we're twats. Aw dear. Let's be socialist instead then, ay?

the voter list includes dead voters or people voting twice, in other words a recount simply doesn't change that the voter fraud was commited.

And yet no one has been able to prove this...

Communism is goood, but people are twats. So it doesn't work... Silly people. Capitalism is a bit crap, because it makes people twats. Communism and freedom can go together! But no one can be properly communist cos we're twats. Aw dear. Let's be socialist instead then, ay?

Nah.

Let's be twats. :D

A little convenient don't you think?
In a less corrupt, free nation with a strong institutionalized democracy, I'd say so. In a highly corrupt and partially unfree Moldova, I wouldn't.


But do you have any basis at all to support a revolt?
Well, to be fair, the opposition were boycotting the idea of a recount before the recount was even made, because they claimed it wouldn't change anything since they'd be recounting the dead voters or, they also claim, hypothetical votes from Moldovans who were out of the country (a rather large percentage of the population of the country has left to find work elsewhere) and were unable to vote, yet the Communist government counted their names as voting for the communist party.

So, atleast they boycotted the recount before they knew its result:

But the liberal, pro-Western opposition, accused by the president of plotting a coup in the protests, was boycotting the recount on grounds that it would produce nothing new.

Opposition parties demand a new election. They say their concern is fraud with voters' lists which they allege contain the names of dead voters and Moldovans working abroad but unable to come back into the country to vote.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0415/breaking29.htm
And that's why you support a coup there to install an authoritarian strongman to... ...to contradict yourself, it seems.
What? When did I call for an authoritarian government to come to power in Moldova? Find me a quote of me saying that. I said I supported the students protesting with their signs that said "Freedom" "Romania" "The West" "Down with Communism" . . . nothing about anything you said there.

And yet no one has been able to prove this...
Kind of hard to when the government is kicking out reporters and the party that could be creating this voter fraud is the current government. . . mix that in with the fact that Moldova is ranked as highly corrupt . . . and only partially free and I don't know . . .

Communism is goood
I'll stop you right there.

What? When did I call for an authoritarian government to come to power in Moldova? Find me a quote of me saying that. I said I supported the students protesting with their signs that said "Freedom" "Romania" "The West" "Down with Communism" . . . nothing about anything you said there.

1- A government that subverts the will of the people is an authoritarian one by definition.

2- Name five examples in which democratically elected leaders were deposed through arms without a dictatorship ensuing.

1- A government that subverts the will of the people is an authoritarian one by definition.
Anti-Communist revolutions took place all throughout Eastern Europe. Was supporting all those revolutions supporting Authoritarianism? That doesn't make any sense.

2- Name five examples in which democratically elected leaders were deposed through arms without a dictatorship ensuing.
The Moldova protest didn't use arms to revolt and also didn't revolt with the aim of a dictatorship, at all.

Kind of hard to when the government is kicking out reporters and the party that could be creating this voter fraud is the current government. . . mix that in with the fact that Moldova is ranked as highly corrupt . . . and only partially free and I don't know . . .

True, but the best you've been able to come up with is some lady saying she felt that there was fraud

Anti-Communist revolutions took place all throughout Eastern Europe. Was supporting all those revolutions supporting Authoritarianism? That doesn't make any sense.


The Moldova protest didn't use arms to revolt and also didn't revolt with the aim of a dictatorship, at all.

1- Will of the people = democracy. Not an economic system, a political system. If the "revolutions" were against elected leaders and by a minority of people, they were coups, and, yes, authoritarian.

2- You said in this thread that you'd support a "revolution" (a coup) against the government if it turned out it really was elected.

-snip-

The fact remains, you have no hard evidence of fraud. What you should be pushing for, and I'm sure you agree with this as well, is for more time for a neutral third party to review the names of the people who voted to check for fraud, rather than merely a recount. That's pushing for democracy and transparency. Violent revolt, not so much, especially when you have no hard evidence of election fraud.

True, but the best you've been able to come up with is some lady saying she felt that there was fraud
Well, she wasn't just some lady. She is Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne and a part of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe that was monitering Moldova's election.

Also, the opposition party claims there were dead people and nonattendant voters counted for . . . but those sources are in Romanian: :confused:

http://www.cotidianul.ro/cum_voteaza_mortii_in_republica_moldova-79772.html

http://garda.com.md/stiri/fraude-non-stop-semnaturi-false-in-liste

http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-opinii-5560303-revolta-anticomunista-republica-moldova.htm
1- Will of the people = democracy. Not an economic system, a political system. If the "revolutions" were against elected leaders and by a minority of people, they were coups, and, yes, authoritarian.
A revolution against a Communist party in power who are to be blamed for Moldova's shitty economy and corruption does not mean that that revolution would automatically result in an Authoritarian government.

2- You said in this thread that you'd support a "revolution" (a coup) against the government if it turned out it really was elected.
I don't support America going into Moldova and destroying their government and rebuilding the country, but I wouldn't be upset if Moldovans revolted, tore down their government and replaced it with a government that will actually help to better Moldova instead of creating a climate where around 10% of the population is forced to live abroad to find work and support themselves and their families.

Also, shitty policy from the Commies is absolutely to blame for atleast the top 4 reasons for Moldova's current awful economic standing.

According to the Global Competitiveness Report[1], the Most Problematic Factors for Doing Business is the access to finances, corruption and bureaucracy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/MoldovaDoingBusiness2007.png/800px-MoldovaDoingBusiness2007.png

The fact remains, you have no hard evidence of fraud. What you should be pushing for, and I'm sure you agree with this as well, is for more time for a neutral third party to review the names of the people who voted to check for fraud, rather than merely a recount. That's pushing for democracy and transparency. Violent revolt, not so much, especially when you have no hard evidence of election fraud.
I don't disagree, but the government is not allowing that, and indeed has even been kicking foreign journalists and such out . . . blaming the entire thing as an attack on their sovereignty from their boogeyman Romania. :rolleyes:

Well, she wasn't just some lady. She is Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne and a part of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe that was monitering Moldova's election.
As I said, some lady... Couldn't care less who she is.
Also, the opposition party claims there were dead people and nonattendant voters counted for . . . but those sources are in Romanian: :confused:

http://www.cotidianul.ro/cum_voteaza_mortii_in_republica_moldova-79772.html

http://garda.com.md/stiri/fraude-non-stop-semnaturi-false-in-liste

http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-opinii-5560303-revolta-anticomunista-republica-moldova.htm
Anyone read Romanian?

Anyone read Romanian?

I can read a touch, but really you want Nanatsu.

I can read a touch, but really you want Nanatsu.

Well, yes...

Wait, are we talking about the same thing?


Seriously though, she can read Romanian?

Seriously though, she can read Romanian?

Yeah. She speaks Spanish and Italian, so she told me deciphering Romanian is fairly simple.

Yeah. She speaks Spanish and Italian, so she told me deciphering Romanian is fairly simple.

Hmm, I don't know. I speak Spanish (not as well as Nantu, though :p ) and a bit of of Italian too, but Romanian is really out there . . . it's connected, but very very difficult to understand given all of its slavic-ness. I've only found it easy to understand when I already know what I'm reading. Then I'm like...ahhh, I see how that means that!

Ok, so a recount has been made. The Communist party has still won, and the opposition parties say that there was no point in the re-count because the voter list includes dead voters or people voting twice, in other words a recount simply doesn't change that the voter fraud was commited.

From your linked article:

A recount of votes cast in Moldova's election has confirmed an emphatic win by the ruling Communist Party, an election official has said.

Electoral Commission secretary Iurie Ciocan said no fraud had been found, despite opposition claims that the election was rigged.

As for the claim that there was something wrong with the voter lists, it has already been shown that the opposition parties were given time to review the lists and were unable to find evidence of voter fraud, as shown in post 530 of this thread.

Also, Moldova expells Romanian and foreign journalists...

Just Romanian journalists. There are also suggestions that Romania may have had some undue influence in the events surrounding the election, and the three journalists mentioned may have been involved.

...
The Moldova protest didn't use arms to revolt and also didn't revolt with the aim of a dictatorship, at all.

If you don't count bottles, rocks, and fire as arms then you are correct. The government officials who were the targets may have a different opinion.

Hmm, I don't know. I speak Spanish (not as well as Nantu, though :p ) and a bit of of Italian too, but Romanian is really out there . . . it's connected, but very very difficult to understand given all of its slavic-ness. I've only found it easy to understand when I already know what I'm reading. Then I'm like...ahhh, I see how that means that!

Yes. You have already shown examples of yourself reading what you want to read into your translations. And that is why I don't trust them.

From your linked article:
Yes, and the opposition boycotted the recount even before the results were stated, because they claimed a recount of the votes with the dead or missing voters in it would still produce the same fradulent results.


As for the claim that there was something wrong with the voter lists, it has already been shown that the opposition parties were given time to review the lists and were unable to find evidence of voter fraud, as shown in post 530 of this thread.
No, from that article what is shown is that the opposition were given 4 days to look over every single voter, and they said that is obviously not enough time:
"He said the election commission agreed to let the opposition inspect voter lists, but the four days allowed was insufficient for the task."


Just Romanian journalists.
That's funny, but you're wrong. Or else BBC would sound extremely redundant saying this:

Romanian and other foreign journalists have been expelled or barred from entering the country and human rights groups have complained that dozens of young people have been detained, denied legal assistance and possibly beaten.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8004603.stm

There are also suggestions that Romania may have had some undue influence in the events surrounding the election, and the three journalists mentioned may have been involved.
Ah, buying into Moldova's Communist party's boogeyman, I see.


You are correct.
I know I am, and I will be as long as you don't try to re-define words in order to make an incorrect point.

The government officials who were the targets may have a different opinion.
http://colossus.mu.nu/smallest-violin.jpg

You have already shown examples of yourself reading what you want to read into your translations.
Really? That's a strange claim to make. Where have I shown examples of myself reading what I want to read into my translations?

I really hope you're not just talking out of your ass and you can back that up.

Yes, and the opposition boycotted the recount even before the results were stated, because they claimed a recount of the votes with the dead or missing voters in it would still produce the same fradulent results.


Yet they have no evidence of this supposed voter fraud.

No, from that article what is shown is that the opposition were given 4 days to look over every single voter, and they said that is obviously not enough time:
"He said the election commission agreed to let the opposition inspect voter lists, but the four days allowed was insufficient for the task."

In other words, they searched for four days and were unable to find any evidence of voter fraud.

That's funny, but you're wrong. Or else BBC would sound extremely redundant saying this:

Do we know why they were barred?

Ah, buying into Moldova's Communist party's boogeyman, I see.

Ah, unable to differentiate between me informing you of what they said and me believing what they said, I see.

I know I am, and I will be as long as you don't try to re-define words in order to make an incorrect point....

The only point I was trying to make was that the rioters used bottles, rocks and fire against government officials. I believe I made it.

Really? That's a strange claim to make. Where have I shown examples of myself reading what I want to read into my translations?

I really hope you're not just talking out of your ass and you can back that up.

Actually, you did that in this very thread:

It is just what I quoted, except I posted it in english on the forum, instead of in Romanian. So that all could understand. Don't be a jerk.

I posted the English translation of the quote which was in Romanian. Are you trying to be obtuse?....

So, this is the post where you explain that you tried to pass off your 'translation' as an actual quote from an actual article. You are replying to my correct assertion that the supposed quotes from the linked article didn't actually appear in the linked articles.

It just so happened that your translation neatly fit your argument, while every English article on the web had a different angle to it. The fact that you seem to be unaware of this leads me to believe that you simply read what you wanted to read when you translated it.

I hope it's clear now. But if not, you can just call me an obtuse jerk again, I suppose.

Well, yes...

Wait, are we talking about the same thing?


Seriously though, she can read Romanian?

Yup Dyako, I do. What do you need?

Yet they have no evidence of this supposed voter fraud.
They clearly said that the 4 days of being able to review the results weren't enough.


In other words, they searched for four days and were unable to find any evidence of voter fraud.
Your personal views are not needed. The opposition claimed that 4 days were not enough to review all the votes.


Do we know why they were barred?
Not that I've seen but that doesn't change the fact that they were expelled, unlike what you claimed.


Ah, unable to differentiate between me informing you of what they said and me believing what they said, I see.
Whether the Moldovan communists want to try to blame a Romanian boogeyman for their problems, Chavez wants to blame an American boogeyman for his problems, Leftists want to blame the CIA for Allende's problems etc etc etc . . . I don't buy into shafting the blame onto foreign boogeymen.

The only point I was trying to make was that the rioters used bottles, rocks and fire against government officials. I believe I made it.
Irrelevant. It wasn't an 'armed coup' which was the point I was discussing with Heikoku.


Actually, you did that in this very thread:



So, this is the post where you explain that you tried to pass off your 'translation' as an actual quote from an actual article. You are replying to my correct assertion that the supposed quotes from the linked article didn't actually appear in the linked articles.

It just so happened that your translation neatly fit your argument, while every English article on the web had a different angle to it. The fact that you seem to be unaware of this leads me to believe that you simply read what you wanted to read when you translated it.
I didn't translate anything, nor did I claim to. What don't you understand about that? Are you so blinded by your dislike for me that you just leap to conclusions without any evidence. The english translation of any quotes from that article was posted on Wikipedia and sourced to that Romanian source. I don't even speak Romanian, but obviously that's irrelevant to your illogical interpretation. :rolleyeyes:

I hope it's clear now. But if not, you can just call me an obtuse jerk again, I suppose.
The only thing you made clear, is that you clearly didn't fully understand what was going on, but didn't let that stop you from trying to use that against me.

Your personal views are not needed. The opposition claimed that 4 days were not enough to review all the votes. If they know there were dead people voting, why do they need to review all the votes? Couldn't they just scan the lists for the names of these dead people? They wouldn't be able to get through all of the supposed dead people, perhaps, but if they found enough they could put forward evidence of voter fraud that way.

So...the arguement I see boils down to this...

"Despite no evidence of voter fraud, even after a recount, I will continue to whine about voter fraud and pretend like there is evidence, even though I am unable to provide any. Also, the people who attacked government officials shouldnt be jailed, because despite the fact that they committed a very obvious crime, I disagree with the government leader's economic views, and the law should only be used to protect people I agree with."


That about right?

So...the arguement I see boils down to this...

"Despite no evidence of voter fraud, even after a recount, I will continue to whine about voter fraud and pretend like there is evidence, even though I am unable to provide any. Also, the people who attacked government officials shouldnt be jailed, because despite the fact that they committed a very obvious crime, I disagree with the government leader's economic views, and the law should only be used to protect people I agree with."


That about right?

More like...

"Due to the voiced objections of the legitimacy of the election by a member of the oranization monitering the Moldovan election, taken with calls of dead and or missing voters, it is only natural that there would be concern amongst opposition parties about the eletion. Also, it is quite understandable that the opposition would not be interested in a recount, if the recount were to include recouting the fradulent votes. That would produce the same fradulent results. Also, I sympathize with the people who revolted against the Communist government, and say clearly, that were I in a country that was being politically and economically mismanaged, to the point of poverty and mass-exodus, that I would also have revolted against further political and economic blundering by the Communist Party."

The economy is the most important thing, because it is directly linked to the availability of our most basic needs; food, water and shelter. So now I ask you this honestly, KoL:

When a government's economic policy is so failed that people are in extreme poverty and atleast 1/10th of its population are forced into exodus in order to sustain themselves, then you have to ask yourself, what is the point of them being in power?

If they know there were dead people voting, why do they need to review all the votes? Couldn't they just scan the lists for the names of these dead people? They wouldn't be able to get through all of the supposed dead people, perhaps, but if they found enough they could put forward evidence of voter fraud that way.
A good point. In all honesty, I'm not sure. I just know what I can read in the reports. You'd have to ask a Moldovan or Romanian.

Yup Dyako, I do. What do you need?

TAI had links to news articles in Romanian, was hoping for a translation.

When a government's economic policy is so failed that people are in extreme poverty and atleast 1/10th of its population are forced into exodus in order to sustain themselves, then you have to ask yourself, what is the point of them being in power?

Because they won the election. Unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud aside.

Because they won the election. Unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud aside.
Winning an election is not the be all and end all. Economic stability comes first and is vital for a prospering and healthy society, and then democracy comes in. Nobody gives a shit about voting if you have to leave your country in order to find work so you don't starve.

Winning an election is not the be all and end all. Economic stability comes first and is vital for a prospering and healthy society, and then democracy comes in. Nobody gives a shit about voting if you have to leave your country in order to find work so you don't starve.

So when the Plebs dont know whats good for them, you tell 'em, right?

So when the Plebs dont know whats good for them, you tell 'em, right?

Economic stability and prosperity is good for everyone. I don't have to tell them it's good for them.

Economic stability and prosperity is good for everyone. I don't have to tell them it's good for them.

Well, the majority apperantly believe that the Communist party will achieve that, as they voted for em again.

TAI had links to news articles in Romanian, was hoping for a translation.

Gimme the links, I'll read through them and offer you a translation.

LOL, sorry, H2, I misread your question. I meant those are the only two military coups that led to democratic governments, not the only two that deposed democratic governments.

I really need to read more carefully next time. >.<

For the record, Stroessner and Traoré were far from democratic. What I meant to illustrate was that most coups led to either dictatorships (in the case of democratically elected leaders being overthrown) or to new dictatorships (one replacing another), but that there are rare exceptions. Of course, that's not what you asked.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Edit: In response to your question, I can think of zero cases of democratically elected leaders being deposed violently and replaced by non-dictatorships. I don't think it has ever happened.

LOL, sorry, H2, I misread your question. I meant those are the only two military coups that led to democratic governments, not the only two that deposed democratic governments.

I really need to read more carefully next time. >.<

For the record, Stroessner and Traoré were far from democratic. What I meant to illustrate was that most coups led to either dictatorships (in the case of democratically elected leaders being overthrown) or to new dictatorships (one replacing another), but that there are rare exceptions. Of course, that's not what you asked.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Edit: In response to your question, I can think of zero cases of democratically elected leaders being deposed violently and replaced by non-dictatorships. I don't think it has ever happened.

To wit.

Edit: In response to your question, I can think of zero cases of democratically elected leaders being deposed violently and replaced by non-dictatorships. I don't think it has ever happened.

Well if Gov. Perry has his way, you could see it, lol...

Gimme the links, I'll read through them and offer you a translation.
These articles, concerning the statement:

"There have also been reports of voter fraud, with deceased and nonattendant persons reportedly voting."

http://www.cotidianul.ro/cum_voteaza...ova-79772.html

http://garda.com.md/stiri/fraude-non...false-in-liste

http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-opinii-5...ca-moldova.htm

Well, the majority apperantly believe that the Communist party will achieve that, as they voted for em again.
The point is, it comes down to whether you place a greater importance on economic stability and prosperity, or real elections. Obviously both are desirable, but at a minimum, which would your prefer?

Would your rather live in a Singapore, which doesn't have a real democracy, but a stable a progressive economy brought on by good economic policy, or a real democracy, with a terrible economy brought on by shitty economic policy, like a Bolivia?

The point is, it comes down to whether you place a greater importance on economic stability and prosperity, or real elections. Obviously both are desirable, but at a minimum, which would your prefer?

Would your rather live in a Singapore, which doesn't have a real democracy, but a stable a progressive economy brought on by good economic policy, or a real democracy, with a terrible economy brought on by shitty economic policy, like a Bolivia?

"The worst of democracies is preferable by far to the best of dictatorships." — Ruy Barbosa

"The worst of democracies is preferable by far to the best of dictatorships." — Ruy Barbosa

Ruy Barbosa was fucking awesome...except at designing flags (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Brazil_15-19_November.svg). :p

Oh, and he wasn't exactly the best finance minister, either.

"The worst of democracies is preferable by far to the best of dictatorships." — Ruy Barbosa
"A witty saying proves nothing."
— Voltaire

"A witty saying proves nothing."
— Voltaire

A saying by one of the greatest jurists in Brazil, who became a judge in the Hague, made his first speech for the abolition of slavery at nineteen, and helped found the Brazilian Letters Academy (Academia Brasileira de Letras, one of the greatest language/literature organizations in the world) does prove quite more than unsubstantiated statements that essentially amount to "I don't agree with their political stance, that means they lost. Even if they won, I hope they are couped out." by you.

"A witty saying proves nothing."
— Voltaire

Most of us here don't consider being lined up in front of a firing squad for expressing a dissenting opinion to be an acceptable sacrifice for a growing economy.

Most of us here don't consider being lined up in front of a firing squad for expressing a dissenting opinion to be an acceptable sacrifice for a growing economy.

Critical hit!!!

Critical hit!!!

http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/crit.jpg ?

Most of us here don't consider being lined up in front of a firing squad for expressing a dissenting opinion to be an acceptable sacrifice for a growing economy.
Right, because supporting a Moldovan student revolt against the Communists who have failed in their economic policy = lining people up in front of the firing squad? ? ?

Right, because supporting a Moldovan student revolt against the Communists who have failed in their economic policy = lining people up in front of the firing squad? ? ?

You outright said you'd support a coup if it turned out that the elections were won fair and square. And no example of a couping out of a democratically-elected leader resulting in another democracy replacing him was ever provided.

I'm a little confused why the debate currently is over economic stability vs. real democracy. It makes when talking about a country like Pinochet's Chile, but a student revolt is people letting their voices being heard and having a direct effect on the government. It's not undemocratic.

You outright said you'd support a coup if it turned out that the elections were won fair and square. And no example of a couping out of a democratically-elected leader resulting in another democracy replacing him was ever provided.
No. I said I would support a domestic revolution there, in Moldova, given the situation. That doesn't just apply, as a blanket term, to my worldview.
I'm a little confused why the debate currently is over economic stability vs. real democracy. It makes when talking about a country like Pinochet's Chile, but a student revolt is people letting their voices being heard and having a direct effect on the government. It's not undemocratic.
The students who were revolting were calling for "Down with communism! Freedom! Europe! Romania!" . . . they wanted the communist government out. And the point is that the Communists have really had bad economic policy that has kept Moldova as Europe's poorest country for years . . . and has resulted in atleast 1/10th of the population leaving the country in order to find work and not starve.

The students who were revolting were calling for "Down with communism! Freedom! Europe! Romania!" . . . they wanted the communist government out. And the point is that the Communists have really had bad economic policy that has kept Moldova as Europe's poorest country for years . . . and has resulted in atleast 1/10th of the population leaving the country in order to find work and not starve.
Right, but it sounds like the student's are attacking the poor economic policy in a not undemocratic way. It doesn't seem like a coup is taking place, which is what the debate seemed to be about.

Right, but it sounds like the student's are attacking the poor economic policy in a not undemocratic way. It doesn't seem like a coup is taking place, which is what the debate seemed to be about.
lol...they stormed the parliament building, set fire to it and tried to destroy the president's office while chanting "down with communism!"

It was intense.

lol...they stormed the parliament building, set fire to it and tried to destroy the president's office while "chanting down with communism!"

It was intense.
Gotcha. It all makes a little more sense now.

The point is, it comes down to whether you place a greater importance on economic stability and prosperity, or real elections. Obviously both are desirable, but at a minimum, which would your prefer?

Would your rather live in a Singapore, which doesn't have a real democracy, but a stable a progressive economy brought on by good economic policy, or a real democracy, with a terrible economy brought on by shitty economic policy, like a Bolivia?

Real elections. That was easy.

Gimme the links, I'll read through them and offer you a translation.

Here they are:
Also, the opposition party claims there were dead people and nonattendant voters counted for . . . but those sources are in Romanian: :confused:

http://www.cotidianul.ro/cum_voteaza_mortii_in_republica_moldova-79772.html

http://garda.com.md/stiri/fraude-non-stop-semnaturi-false-in-liste

http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-opinii-5560303-revolta-anticomunista-republica-moldova.htm

They clearly said that the 4 days of being able to review the results weren't enough.

That doesn,t change the simple fact that they were given time to find evidence and were unable to find any.

Your personal views are not needed. The opposition claimed that 4 days were not enough to review all the votes.

I know that you would like it to be just my 'personal view', but the truth is that it's a fact: there has yet to be any evidence.

Not that I've seen but that doesn't change the fact that they were expelled, unlike what you claimed.

The articles I had read simply indicated the Romanian ones and told why, your article mentions foreign journalists and does not give any further details. If you want to argue that they are doing it for undemocratic reasons, you have to show some evidence. I won't hold my proverbial breath.

Whether the Moldovan communists want to try to blame a Romanian boogeyman for their problems, Chavez wants to blame an American boogeyman for his problems, Leftists want to blame the CIA for Allende's problems etc etc etc . . . I don't buy into shafting the blame onto foreign boogeymen.

I know, because not 'buying into' that fits into your worldview, and you seem to avoid thinking about things that threaten your worldview. But you are willing to believe that the Russians had something to do with it. It seems you'll buy into the foreign bogeymen when itnsuits you.

Irrelevant. It wasn't an 'armed coup' which was the point I was discussing with Heikoku.

Oh, it definitely was not a coup. But it was also definitely armed.

I didn't translate anything, nor did I claim to. What don't you understand about that? Are you so blinded by your dislike for me that you just leap to conclusions without any evidence. The english translation of any quotes from that article was posted on Wikipedia and sourced to that Romanian source. I don't even speak Romanian, but obviously that's irrelevant to your illogical interpretation. :rolleyeyes:

If you didn't do the translation, then who translated this phrase:

"The Russians from the organization influenced this report. She also declared that at the numbering of the votes that at 1 o'clock the Communist had 35% of the votes and the 15-16 parties from the opposition 40-45% altogether while shortly later, at 8 o'clock the sitaution changed radically and the communists had 50%."

which you used in this post: Linky. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14681211&postcount=151)

You link to this source: article in Romanian (http://www.cotidianul.ro/emma_nicholson_critica_raportul_osce_referitor_la_alegerile_din_republica_moldova-79833.html)

Now you're claiming that the translation that you apparently didn't make is from this wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u_riots#Background

Unfortunately that phrase does not occur in this article.

Now, that leaves the following options: you translated it yourself and are now lying, or you have really shitty sourcing skills.

You could clear this all up by showing me the source for the quoted comment above suggesting undue Russian influence.

A very fair question. Now I'll answer it fairly. A society that favors equality over freedom, yet values both (as an example Germany or Scandi countries) often lacks the economic freedom necessary to inspire innovation and entrepreneurship thus suffers. In these countries government tends to restrain the ease of starting a company, of realizing new ideas and of being able to behave flexibilly (economically) due to the often unflexible labor laws/regulations that are in place in order to provide "job security" for the workers. Countries that favor freedom over equality, though value both, tend emphasize entrepreneurship and economic/social mobility as the key to keeping a vibrant and progressive society, where as Social Democracies favor more big business capitalism and social "security" . . . which means that you're much more likely to be born comfortably, live comfortably and die comfortably, but much less likely to start a business, introduce new technologies or revolutionize an industry.

The point is though, that that is just a matter of opinion of priorities, because under both systems freedom and equality both exist to reasonable levels. Where as, under Communism, freedom does not exist at all because of the demand of extreme equality.
Thanks for the answer.

Well, for example greater personal freedom means a smaller role for the state and limits on its powers to redistrubte income through welfare, taxes and regulations.

Strictly speaking, economically:

Canada is ranked 7th for economic freedom while Sweden and Norway are ranked 26th and 28th. Denmark is ranked 8th but it isn't exactly the same model of the scandinavian welfare state that Sweden and Norway are.
So "isn't exactly the same" means "is vastly different", seeing as how they are far apart on the rankings? What's the differences?

Don't read too far into it. I just read in the news that they were going to do a recount, not that a recount had been made. . . thus no "turn of events".


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/10/President-of-Moldova-seeks-recount/UPI-66311239396127/
I'll have to apologize for my fever-driven tone. It came across more agressive than I intended.

If the re-count gives the Communist Party the victory, then I guess that's it. It seems like the Communist Party was going to win, but did commit fraud (dead voters and stuff) which increased their victory. I think, from what I've been researching, that the point was the the fraud they commited didn't change the fact that they would have won the election, unfortunately.
And yet, we've still haven't seen any proof of this non-significant voter fraud. In fact, the election (before the recount) ended up in a defeat for the communists, in the sense that they don't have the votes to unilaterally appoint a new president.

So yeah, if they win the re-count, then it's over. And Moldova and its people suffer, while the Communist pro-Russian elite keep the country back from from the West and away from its potential.:(
Would they suffer any less by having a different government? I haven't seen anything to suggest that.

They only started to become pro-EU recently because of a fight with Russia over Transdniestr, an area they want to totally control:
To say that it was the only reason is a bit too naïve...

It's leadership is still out of touch with the local population, and yes I still stand by what I said:
Seems like they're in touch with the majority.


Under the current Communist party, Moldova looks like this:

Moldova:

Freedom House: Free/Partly Free/Not Free

Index of Economic Freedom: Free/Mostly free/Mostly unfree/Unfree

Worldwide Press Freedom Index: Good situation/Satisfactory situation/Noticeable problems/Difficult situation/Very serious situation

Democracy Rating: Full democracy/Flawed democracy/Hybrid regime/Authoritarian

What did it look like before the communists were elected into power?


That's not just opinion and you [I]do have evidence to back that up. Given that the Communists have been controlling Moldova for the past 2 decades or so,
Past decade or so, thank you.

The communists got back into power in 2001. During the period between 1992 and 2001, while the president might have been a communist (at least a member pf a communist party) the communist parties were never back in power. So the worst economic development happened under the former governments, not the communists - rather the communists (whom your Bible, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13497056), describes as "a centre-right party") presided over what your OP (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30085656/) describes as "stability and growth in Europe's poorest nation since 2001". So it seems odd that you would claim that they had two decades in power, and blame them for making Moldova a backwards shit-hole while that didn't actually happen on their watch.

Anyway:

we can look at at Moldova's corruption index from Transparency International (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008)

Moldova ranks 109th out of 180.

2008 CPI score: 2.9 out of 10 (10 being no corruption)

Surveys used: 7

Confidence range: 2.4 - 3.7

What was it before the communists were elected into power?


Ok, so a recount has been made. The Communist party has still won, and the opposition parties say that there was no point in the re-count because the voter list includes dead voters or people voting twice, in other words a recount simply doesn't change that the voter fraud was commited.
...which still is simply an unproven allegation.


So in reality, nothing changes. Moldova continues to be corrupt, shitty, economically unfree and a bit too authoritarian for my liking. Yay.....:rolleyes

Was it any better before the communists were voted back into power?

Here they are:

Danke. I'll look into them and post a translation shortly.

First link:
Ph.D. in economics Veaceslav Ous, who was in Japan for four years, has learned with stupor that he and his dead father, participated in the recent elections in Moldova.

"I can prove that, by my passport, on April 5 I was in Japan. However, Moldova doesn't has embassy or consulate in the country. The nearest place where I could vote was in China'', the PhD in economics showed Veaceslav Ous (photo) answered for cotidianul.ro.

However, it was a big surprise when his mother went to the voting section and saw a signed list showing that her son, Ous, was in it.

Moreover, in the same document, another voter "registered" was Nikon Ous, Veaceslav's father, who died only a month before the elections.

This leads to see that computerized records of the population and that the inclusion of people left the country and the deceased
on the electoral lists does not seem to be a simple mistake.

Vitalie Ciobanu declared it to www.cotidianul.ro that whole cemeteries voted for Voronin.

Excuse some of the mistakes, my Romanian is slightly rusty.

The other 2 articles go on talking about the same, fraud at the elections. Apparently it is common for Moldovans to raise as zombies from their tombs and go on voting at the elections.

First link:


Excuse some of the mistakes, my Romanian is slightly rusty.

The other 2 articles go on talking about the same, fraud at the elections. Apparently it is common for Moldovans to raise as zombies from their tombs and go on voting at the elections.

Well, it appears that there was some voter fraud...

Well, it appears that there was some voter fraud...

Yes, one person was in Japan and the other was dead. Both appeared on the lists, but weren't there. It seems to be a common practice there. Whole cemeteries go to the election urns.

Well, it appears that there was some voter fraud...

Not really. The article doesn't explain what kind of list this is, and how the voters came to see it. If it's simply a list over eligible voters there may not be any problems.

And the cemetary claim is more speculation as there's yet to be any proof of voter fraud presented to the world.

Moldova's ruling Communist party was again declared the winner on Tuesday in the ex-Soviet state's disputed parliamentary election, in a recount ordered after violent protests against the initial result.

Iurie Ciocan, Secretary of the Central Election Commission, said the results differed little from the original figures issued after the April 5 election, which gave the Communists just short of 50 percent of the vote.

"The difference between the recount and original count is not significant," Ciocan told reporters after a Commission meeting.
The Constitutional Court, which must confirm the recount, is to sit on Wednesday, but could take several days examining opposition complaints before issuing a ruling. It ordered the recount at the president's request.
Opposition parties said they would challenge the recount.

"We, the three opposition parties, will challenge the result in the Chisinau Court of Appeal. We do not agree with it," said Nicolae Railean of the Our Moldova party.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE53K2E620090421

As expected, a recount has confirmed the original results. As expected, the fight isn't over yet.

...aaaaand the constitutional court have upheld the result.

Any evidence they are corrupt?

Moldova's Constitutional Court on Wednesday upheld the results of a recount in an April 5 parliamentary election in which a Communist victory sparked violent protests.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLM943952

At the same time, the EU is calling for an election probe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8011760.stm

Real elections. That was easy.

^ This.

If politicians implement ruinous policies, you can (at least in theory) vote them out and elect people who will do better.

...aaaaand the constitutional court have upheld the result.

Any evidence they are corrupt?


http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLM943952

At the same time, the EU is calling for an election probe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8011760.stm

It would appear that the support for a probe into Moldovan election results has some supporters:

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1240500729.96

EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner on Thursday backed the idea of sending an EU mission to Moldova, where the opposition is contesting the Communist victory in recent polls.

"Personally I'm in favour of such a mission, that's absolutely clear. Now we have to work out the terms of reference of such a mission," she told a press conference in Brussels.

On a more interesting note, the row between Moldova and Romania seems to be getting more interesting. Moldova is now demanding visas from Romanians. The EU is putting pressure on Moldova to rethink this.

First link:


Excuse some of the mistakes, my Romanian is slightly rusty.

The other 2 articles go on talking about the same, fraud at the elections. Apparently it is common for Moldovans to raise as zombies from their tombs and go on voting at the elections.
Thanks. :)

On a more interesting note, the row between Moldova and Romania seems to be getting more interesting. Moldova is now demanding visas from Romanians. The EU is putting pressure on Moldova to rethink this.
Moldova is just blaming their internal problems on their outside boogeyman, Romania. They don't like the fact that many Moldovans want to re-join Romania, who see that process as a good step towards joining the EU and moving West-ward.

How popular is pro-unification (with Romania) sentiment in Moldova? I know next to nothing about the place, to be honest.

For that matter, how popular is it Romania?

Thanks. :)

No hay de qué.

.....

Moldova is just blaming their internal problems on their outside boogeyman, Romania. They don't like the fact that many Moldovans want to re-join Romania, who see that process as a good step towards joining the EU and moving West-ward.

That may be, but issues like immigration should be decided by Moldova, not Romania.

By the way, you never responded to this post of mine:

...

"The Russians from the organization influenced this report. She also declared that at the numbering of the votes that at 1 o'clock the Communist had 35% of the votes and the 15-16 parties from the opposition 40-45% altogether while shortly later, at 8 o'clock the sitaution changed radically and the communists had 50%."

....

You could clear this all up by showing me the source for the quoted comment above suggesting undue Russian influence.

That may be, but issues like immigration should be decided by Moldova, not Romania.

By the way, you never responded to this post of mine:

I thought I had linked you to it before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_parliamentary_election,_2009#Reactions

She also declared that at the counting of the votes that at 1:00 the PCRM had 35% of the votes and the 15–16 parties from the opposition 40–45% altogether while shortly later, at 8:00 the situation changed radically and the PCRM had 50%.

Baroneasa a mai declarat că la ora 1.00 noaptea comuniştii aveau 35% din voturi, iar cele 15-16 partide de opoziţie aveau împreună 40-45%. La ora 8.00 dimineaţa, situaţia s-a schimbat radical. Comuniştii aveau 50%, iar opoziţia înregistra un procent foarte mic.

http://www.cotidianul.ro/emma_nicholson_critica_raportul_osce_referitor_la_alegerile_din_republica_moldova-79833.html

I thought I had linked you to it before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_parliamentary_election,_2009#Reactions

http://www.cotidianul.ro/emma_nicholson_critica_raportul_osce_referitor_la_alegerile_din_republica_moldova-79833.html

No, actually, you did not provide that source anywhere in this thread before.

I suggest you work on your sourcing.

Anyways, the quote is still not evidence of voter fraud, or even evidence of your Russian bogeymen influencing the election monitoring. Since the person speaking is an English citizen, what were her original words? Iask because if you translate something from English to Romanian and back again, you can easily get errors creeping in. Do you have the original quote in English?

So what parts of the apparently center-right Moldovan communism is it that is vital to oppose? How is the Moldovan communists in opposition to political, social and economic freedom, especially compared to the opposition parties and the parties that ruled Moldova for a decade before the communists got into power?

The enduring uselessness of traditional political labels

THE terms “left” and “right” and right don’t mean much in politics anymore and in the ex-communist world they are particularly confusing. Last week’s report in The Economist on Moldova described that country’s ruling Communists as a “centre-right” party, which attracted some sharp feedback. At first sight the idea of centre-right communists sounds as odd as “moderate Trotskyites” or “secular jihadists”. But most other conventional labels would fit the ruling crowd in Moldova worse.

Similarly, the Moldovan Communists support business (particularly bits that benefit them) and have dumped Marx. They are keen on a strong Moldovan national identity (arguably another “conservative” point), and they certainly don’t want redistribution of wealth.
Link (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13525390)

What? This thread is still going? **Long Live Anti-Communism Threads!**

Moldova is just blaming their internal problems on their outside boogeyman, Romania. They don't like the fact that many Moldovans want to re-join Romania, who see that process as a good step towards joining the EU and moving West-ward.

Remind me... You had no problem with Russia handing out Russian passports to Georgians and South-Ossetians, did you?

So what parts of the apparently center-right Moldovan communism is it that is vital to oppose? How is the Moldovan communists in opposition to political, social and economic freedom, especially compared to the opposition parties and the parties that ruled Moldova for a decade before the communists got into power?


Actually, within communism, the terms 'left and right' are still used, to describe different extremes of communism. I remember that Stalin was described as right wing, and Trotsky as left wing, but this was within the context of socialism. Also, I doubt the claim that they have 'ditched Marx', this would be contrary to their political program that I linked to, and why would they call themselves Marxist-Leninist?

Also, I doubt the claim that they have 'ditched Marx', this would be contrary to their political program that I linked to, and why would they call themselves Marxist-Leninist?

I don't know this at all, as I have no real knowledge of Moldovan politics... But does what they say they want to do correspond to what they actually do? Perhaps calling themselves Marxist-Leninist is a good selling point and aimed at the people who yearn for the "good old days"?

I know of some Christian conservative parties that aren't particularly christian, for example. And I know of parties that put stuff in their political program that they themselves know have little basis in reality. (More like a wish-list than a program sometimes)

But as I said, I don't know. And I don't know what the alternatives are. Throughout this thread TAI have shouted "Down with the communists", but there's been no explanation on what the alternatives are. (In the same way as how the period of non-communist rule from 1992 to 2001 has been conveniently ignored.)

Also, I doubt the claim that they have 'ditched Marx', this would be contrary to their political program that I linked to, and why would they call themselves Marxist-Leninist?
Might I direct your attention to that stalwart supporter of the proletariat, the UK Labour party?

That being said, the PCRM's platform, as you note, does smack of communism, of some variety or other. Perhaps The Economist is meaning that the party have ditched classical Marxist theory?

Remind me... You had no problem with Russia handing out Russian passports to Georgians and South-Ossetians, did you?
Russia trying to spread influence and control over areas by increasing the amount of Russians in those areas is not the same as Moldovans being generally unhappy with the shitty, backwards state of Moldova and thus applying for Romanian citizenship, as we see here:

"approximately 800,000 of Moldova's current 3.4 million inhabitants have already applied for Romanian citizenship."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,617005,00.html

So what parts of the apparently center-right Moldovan communism is it that is vital to oppose? How is the Moldovan communists in opposition to political, social and economic freedom, especially compared to the opposition parties and the parties that ruled Moldova for a decade before the communists got into power?

Link (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13525390)
Besides their platform, which shows them as Marxist-Leninist, here is some things that show that they still are Communist, aren't pro-economic freedom, (being pro-business that helps the corrupt government in power isn't any different than how Cuba is pro-business, except that Cuba has more state-owned industries than Moldova) why this party is bad for Moldova and why a liberal party would be better.

And while we're on it, let's dicuss exactly what kind of Communist government *is* running Moldova:

"The young people have gone to Russia or Europe," says Mikhail, a villager in his late fifties. "They are building their futures there."

Among those who are left behind, there are frequent outbursts of rage at the corrupt Communist Party regime, which has helped the president's son Oleg become one of the richest "biznesmen" in the country. The average monthly wage is €175 ($232). "We have no fear" is the slogan at a rally of liberal and right-wing opposition parties in the capital Chisinau, attended by some 30,000 people.

The source of that fear is the country's Information and Security Service, which is headed by a presidential confidant. The intelligence agency is located in a stone building surrounded by rolls of barbed wire on the capital's August 31 Street. In private, its officers boast that they have opposition politicians "under control" -- in other words, blackmailed and bought. The Communist Party plans to enthrone a successor to Voronin, who is barred by the constitution from serving another term, after the election.

Anyone who wants to resist the regime needs to endure a lot -- like Serafim Urechean, leader of the largest opposition party, Our Moldova. Urechean, the ex-mayor of Chisinau and a former Communist Party functionary, sits in his office surrounded by nine icons. He has survived five criminal proceedings, mainly related to abuse of authority, launched by the public prosecutor, which does the government's bidding. Urechean, who has a certain godfather-style charm, sees himself as a savior of the fatherland and a future president. He wants to bring the country into the EU as part of an alliance with Romania.

The party most keen to keep Moldova independent is the Communist Party, which has ruled the country for eight years. It draws strength from the fact that the poor region enjoyed a significant boom during the Soviet era. For years, Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin, who leads the Communist Party, spurred the electorate with hopes for a "rebirth of the socialist community." Now he's taking a more pro-Europe stance.

The graying party functionary still lays Soviet-style wreaths at Lenin monuments on holidays and the Communist Party program still invokes the "volcano of social creativity, born in the revolution." The Communist Party is popular with their German comrades in the far-left Left Party, whose delegations get driven through the country's sunny wine country in Russian Volga cars. The Left Party members rave about their "friendly" and "warm" Moldovan counterparts.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,617005,00.html

Also, in Moldova, the levels of government size, freedom from corruption, monetary freedom, labor freedom, investment freedom, property rights and financial freedom are all unacceptable.


Moldova has a number of institutional shortcomings that impede entrepreneurial activity. Monetary freedom, investment freedom, and freedom from corruption are weak. Inflation is high, although the government has been phasing out price supports on certain goods. Foreign investment faces hurdles ranging from bureaucratic inefficiency to outright restriction. There is significant corruption in most areas of the bureaucracy, and an inefficient public sector suffers from a bloated payroll and ever-rising salary increases.
http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Moldova

According to the International Monetary Fund, "despite efforts to simplify licensing and business registration, there has been no significant improvement in the business climate. Moreover, the privatization program has stalled, while corruption remains widespread and governance weak. Government interference in the private sector…casts doubt over the authorities' commitment to market-oriented reforms." The Economist Intelligence Unit reports that the "poor investment climate, including annulments of some earlier sales, continues to deter many Western investors. Between 2001 and 2004 the government privatized less than 60 of the 480-odd enterprises scheduled for sale." Foreign investors may not purchase agricultural or forest land. The IMF reports that both residents and non-residents may hold foreign exchange accounts, but approval is required in some cases

Although the government maintains a pro-Western stance, it has had trouble pursuing structural reforms and has made little progress on the International Monetary Fund's program to attract external financial resources. The parliament approved the government's economic growth and strategy paper in December 2004, but international financial institutions and Western investors will not be satisfied until the government begins to address fiscal adjustment, wage restraint, and payment of debt arrears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Moldova#Government_intervention


How popular is pro-unification (with Romania) sentiment in Moldova? I know next to nothing about the place, to be honest.

For that matter, how popular is it Romania?
Europe's last Communist regime is looking increasingly shaky. The population in Moldova, which holds parliamentary elections this Sunday, wants reunification with Romania -- and the EU membership it would bring.

German reunification is an increasingly common topic of conversation these days in Moldova, the poorest part of Europe. In the run-up to parliamentary elections on April 5, opposition parties calling for closer links, or even a union, with EU member state Romania are enjoying massive support.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,617005,00.html

According to a March 2006 poll in Romania, 51% of Romanians support a union with Moldova, 27% are against, and another 10% declined to answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_unification_of_Romania_and_Moldova#The_current_situation

And while we're on it, let's dicuss exactly what kind of Communist government *is* running Moldova...
We're not "on it", you've brought it up after failing to show voter fraud.

Look, no-one in this thread is saying that the Moldovan government is the best thing since sliced bread. From apparent evidence, it's corrupt, occasionally authoritarian in its measures towards prisoners or free citizens, doesn't seem to like protesters too much, and has other poor traits.

No-one is arguing against this.

But unless you can show how poor economic managing of a country, harsh measures against prisoners and protesters, corruption, or nepotism are the exclusive traits of a communist state, I don't see what your point is.

Russia trying to spread influence and control over areas by increasing the amount of Russians in those areas is not the same as Moldovans being generally unhappy with the shitty, backwards state of Moldova and thus applying for Romanian citizenship, as we see here:

"approximately 800,000 of Moldova's current 3.4 million inhabitants have already applied for Romanian citizenship."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,617005,00.html
So you weren't opposed to the Russians doing what they did - giving it to Georgians and South Ossetians generally unhappy with the shitty, backwards state of Georgia and thus applying for Russian passports. You are not opposed to Russia granted citizenship to nearly 3 million ethnic Russians living outside its borders (especially in Georgia, Moldova, Estonia and Ukraine) and you are not opposed to Romania granting citizenship to anyone living in Moldova with a Romanian grandparent or great-grandparent.

Good to know.

Besides their platform, which shows them as Marxist-Leninist, here is some things that show that they still are Communist, aren't pro-economic freedom, (being pro-business that helps the corrupt government in power isn't any different than how Cuba is pro-business, except that Cuba has more state-owned industries than Moldova) why this party is bad for Moldova and why a liberal party would be better.
The Economist is no longer your bible, I see :p

But you're still not showing that the alternatives would be more liberal, nor that the previous parties have been better for Moldova. You're not showing that the communists are bad for Moldova because they are communists. On the contrary, your links say:
Voronin, the only Communist president in Europe, has overseen stability and growth in Europe's poorest nation since 2001
Yet you maintain that the communists are the reason why Moldova is the poorest country in Europe.

And the links tend to say...
Now he's taking a more pro-Europe stance.
Although the government maintains a pro-Western stance
...while you claim that they "keep the country back from from the West". You still haven't you proven your own sources wrong, just claimed that the shift happened recently - which still leaves a shift in policy that happened 3 - 4 years ago.


Also, in Moldova, the levels of government size, freedom from corruption, monetary freedom, labor freedom, investment freedom, property rights and financial freedom are all unacceptable.
As they were before the communists got into power?

So to sum up, you would support a domestic revolution against the communists in Moldova because they are communists (in name at least) and because Moldova is a corrupt country that's partially unfree - as it has been since it came into existence - without any guarantee that the parties ousting the democratically elected government (still no evidence of voter fraud, mind) would do any better on the economic front or would make the country any more free.

And that said, I have to second Chumblywumbly's last post. In my mind, the attack on the ruling party in Moldova because they happen to be the called communist is simply a diversion and missing the target. Evidence of voter fraud would be evidence of serious and unacceptable problems. Yet evidence of that has still not been presented. The lack of freedom and the authoritarian nature of the government is deplorable - but nothing new, unfortunately, not anything specifically linked to "The communists".

The Government generally respects the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas. The police occasionally beat and otherwise abuse detainees and prisoners. Prison conditions remain harsh, with attempts to improve them hampered by lack of funding. While the executive branch has exerted undue influence on the judiciary, there were indications during the year that judicial independence was increasing. It is widely believed that security forces monitor political figures, use unauthorized wiretaps, and at times conduct illegal searches. The Constitution potentially limits the activities of the press, political parties, and religious groups. Journalists practice self-censorship. The law also imposes restrictions on some religious groups. Societal discrimination and violence against women persist. Trafficking in women and girls is a significant problem. Addressing a minority concern, the Constitution allows parents the right to choose the language of education for their children.
US dep. of State Human rights report (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/1999/347.htm)

The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, security forces beat persons in custody and held persons in incommunicado detention. Prison conditions remained harsh, and security forces occasionally harassed and intimidated the political opposition. There were reports of judicial and police corruption, arbitrary detention by police, and occasional illegal searches. The government attempted to influence the media and intimidate journalists, maintained some restrictions on freedom of assembly, and refused official registration to some religious groups. Persistent societal violence and discrimination against women and children; trafficking in women and girls for sexual exploitation; discrimination against Roma; difficulties registering minority religious groups; limits on workers' rights; and child labor problems were also reported.
US dep. of State Human rights report (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119093.htm)

The situation in 1999 wasn't that much different from the situation in 2008...

The situation in Moldova needs improvement. I do not believe that a coup or a revolution against a democratically elected government is the way to go, however. Rather, serious talks with the EU, the US, Russia and the neighbouring countries about Transdniestria and Romania seems to be the way to go to ease tensions at first. Hopefully the Moldovans can improve their own country including their economy thorugh peaceful means and political compromise as well.