вторник, 7 апреля 2009 г.

Angry protesters storm Moldovan parliament

According to various reports, 2,500-20,000 people took to the streets of Moldova’s capital Chisinau to protest the results of Sunday’s parliamentary elections.
At least 20 people have been injured, and one protester is feared dead.

The reports indicate the protesters have stormed the parliament building and set furniture inside on fire.

They have also thrown stones, bottles, and eggs at the building of the presidential administration.

The protesters – mainly students – apparently did not plan violence initially, and police were not interfering after blocking the traffic on Chisinau’s central road, but then they had to use tear gas.

The participants of the rally, waving Romanian and European Union flags, demanded that Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin come out to them and announce his resignation.

Among the slogans used by the protesters were: “Down with Communism!," “We want freedom,” and “We are against falsification!”

The Head of the presidential administration, Mark Tkachuk, gave RT his comments concerning the situation:

“Street riots have been initiated by a group formed by the leaders of the opposition parties which have lost the election – that is, which either failed to make it into parliament, or got a very limited number of deputies,” he said.

“Masses of shaven-headed youths have stormed into the Parliament. Most of the slogans they are chanting are anti-Moldovan, and are mostly concerned with the country's unification with Romania. There are Romanian flags everywhere. All this can be classified as an attempt to launch a street riot coup d’etat,” he added.

The Leader of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party, Vlad Filat, has called on the protestors to stop acting aggressively.

“We have signed a document with the leaders of the Liberal Party Our Moldova alliance which annuls the results of the election on April 5. We are going to seek the cancellation of election results and organization of a truly democratic election. I urge you to stop the protest,” Filat said.

According to preliminary reports (almost 99% of ballots counted), the Moldovan Communist Party won 49.96% of votes, while the Liberal Party got 12.78%, the Liberal Democratic Party – 12.26%, and the Our Moldova alliance – 9.81%.

The opposition was dissatisfied with the vote results and said it planned a protest rally on Tuesday.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry reacted to the April 5 parliamentary election calling it, “another step towards the strengthening of democratic norms and traditions in the country.”

Source:RT

7 комментариев:

Chernevog комментирует...

Thats the nature of any democratic system. Someone always loses the election, and so some people are going to be dissatisfied.

This is occuring in the U.S. right now. After a run of almost 30 years in which the political conservatives pretty much controlled most of the U.S. government and its policies, the election of Barack Obama has raised the hackles of almost every conservative group from the religious right to outright racists.

But in the U.S. there seems to be a 30 year cycle that swings from the conservative to the progressive and back again.

Between 1950 and 1980, the U.S. was largely controlled by political liberals, with the "counterculture movement" which ranged from the hippies in San Francisco, the Womens Rights Movement, the Civil Rights movement all occuring within that period, and then there was a reactionary backlash in 1980 where the Religious Right and other conservative groups that had been divided, united with some conservative Democrats named "Reagan Democrats" were able to keep power for close to 30 years.

The pendulum has swung back towards the more progressive as the younger generation of adults, those between the ages of 25 and 45 have simply started to oppose the values of the Religious Right and have either totally rejected them, or have given their own interpretation to their own religious values that has a less conservative slant to it.

This seems to happen everywhere governments are freely elected. Any group that tends to stay in power too long tends to abuse that power, their policies become stale and are eventually rejected by the electorate.

In general its a good thing. i tend to trust the instincts of the young myself.

Chernevog комментирует...

I also wonder when there will be some sort of consistant set of rules that apply to the national aspiration for autonomy by various peoples. As noted, the treatment of the breakway from Kosovo has been treated totally differntly from the national aspirations in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and recently the Russian press has taken note of the national aspiration of Rusyns in the Ukraine.

On March 21st, Russia Today did a very good article on this topic, while the rest of the world seems to ignore the issue entirely.

lastochka комментирует...

I could clearly remember myself a young schoolgirl during the putsch
in August 1991.My parents didn't let me go outside, because they were afraid that I would go to the streets to defend the ideas of perestroika.Some years after I realized that ideal political system didn't exist.Both democrates or communists could lie to you or use propoganda.Every country has it's own national interest and this factor plays the major role when it comes the time for it's elite to make decisions. And the most bitter fact- war is a very profitable business...

Yes, you are right.It seems that Abhazia and South Ossetia are'nt the "democratic states" and doesn't have western patrons instead of Ukraine and Georgia.The same with Rysins... The democracy for the chosen ones, but in this case it's not a democracy..

lastochka комментирует...

I meant unlike Georgia and Ukraine.

Chernevog комментирует...

I just find it amusing how hard old ideas die. Much of the world still holds to the idea that if a Communist Party WINS an election anywhere, the election must have been somehow rigged.

I remember reading the memoirs of the American President who presided over the events that would lead to the Vietnam War, Dwight Eisenhower, as to the reasons that he prevented the free democratic elections that were part of the agreement between the French and the North Vietnamese at the Geneva Convention in July of 1954.

Basically the agreement was that fair and free elections would be held throughout a unified Vietnam, with both the South and North taking part in the elections.

However polls done by Americans throughout all of South Vietnam indicated that Ho Chi Minh would win any freely held election with 80 percent of the vote, including winning the South with 80 percent of the vote.

Because the United States policy during the cold war asserted that NO communist party could ever be freely chosen by any country in a free election, the U.S. simply cancelled the agreement and the promised elections were never held. Eisenhower the very first cold warrior, was quite proud of this fact and very open about it and the United States clung to this same policy for decades and this was also why the U.S. arranged the military coup d'etat that resulted in the overthrow of Salavador Allende, the first freely elected Socialist President.

Nixon was so incensed that the Chileans dared to elect a Socialist government that the process of removing Allende and replacing him with the brutal Pinochet regime was almost immediately put into effect within days of Allende being elected, and contingencies for doing so were planned even before the election occured.

The Chileans had to suffer two decades of one of the worse dictatorships since the end of World War II. This was not the first such interference. Nationalists like Mossadegh in Iran, and Arbenz in Guatamala were also overthrown, accused of being "communists" because they simply wanted the profits from their own national resources to be used to benefit their own very impovershed peoples, rather than large American corporations. The same occured in Chile when Allende decided he wanted a larger share of the mining wealth of his country to be used for his own nation and its people.

And lets face it, the problems the U.S. now has with Putin are really based on the fact that he decided that Russias resources should be used to the benefit of the Russian people, rather than to enrich multinational corporations, and to not have the wealth gained through Russian energy resources sucked out of the Russian Federation and deposited in foreign banks.

Until this mentality is left behind, the world will still suffer the same geopolitical stresses and problems with the new aristocracy of monied corporations trying to live in great opulence at the expense of billions of the rest of us.

The first step in this process is to allow the true self determination which was engendered at the end of the Second World War in the creation of various World Treaties and World Organization like the United Nations. To truly allow people to determine the form of government they wish to live under, without external constraints, and to allow them to benefit from the resources that exist within their own borders.

I do not know if you are familiar with the television program "Star Trek", but there is a principal engendered in it called the "Prime Directive".It becomes Earths highest principal, which is that no member of this federation is allowed to interfere, in anyway, with the internal politics, economics, cultural or social development of any other world.

The original author of Star Trek was a rather progressive and forward looking man, who unfortunately was extremely optimistic in his thinking about mankind.

But the idea is very attractive, and rather more closely fits the original conceptualization of those who founded the League of Nations first, and then its sucessor, the United Nations, which is very unpopular with American conservatives.

I agree that there is no perfect form of government, but the least desirable form of government is one that is superimposed by an foreign power or powers on other nations, either by direct threat of force, or indirect economic threat.

lastochka комментирует...

When Russia defended it's neibhours, like in August of 2008,granted loans to some of ex-soviet republics, West start to speak immediately that we want to restore the former empire, dear me! I have never read such a whopper like in some western newspapres the last time. Soviet propaganda fades in comprasion with it.
I watched the news from Moldova yesterday, young people robed the House of Parliament they stole PС's, office equipment, furniture and after sell some of these things in square right in front of it. It was really an offensive sight.

Chernevog комментирует...

Fortunately, there were arms of the western media that did report a more detailed set of positions on the situation in Georgia with regards to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

From what I remember the first reports were consistant with what you are speaking about, but later reports started coming in from international organizations that were in the area (like the Red Cross) that substantiated the Russian positions, that is, the Russians entered to protect the non-Georgian majorities in these areas, taking up defensive positions,not firing on the Georgians, but making it difficult, or impossible, for the Georgian military to shell or bomb civilian areas in these two new countries.