As Martha notes below, there is a coup developing in Madagascar. I've been collecting some articles about the situation in Madagascar, basically from the NY Times, here.
Some interesting things about this coup (though it is hard to know exactly what's going on; the President says he is not out, and the army is not entirely with the challenger). In late January, Andry Rajoelina, the new self-proclaimed president, said that Marc Ravalomanana, the apparently (but not quite) ousted president, was no longer president and he was. But at that time, that claim did not fly with the army or the population. It looks that a month later he says the same thing and he has more success (though it is not clear that the entire army is with him). What changed? If the army is not entirely on one side or the other, how do you think this story is likely to end?
Another point: this coup is taking place in a nation that meets the "electoral democracy" criteria of Freedom House, though as Martha says below Madagascar is also a 3/3 (partly free) in the more extended list of criteria. Why do you think that is? How common do you think coups are in "electoral democracies"? Why do you think Rajoelina is unwilling to wait until the next election to gain power (note he is not even a military man, but the major of the capital)? Does the coup tell you something about Madagascar's democracy?
Finally, a more theoretical question: does Madagascar show what happens when political competition gets out of hand? Is political competition always a good? What is the difference between the regularized political competition that occurs through elections and the kind of political competition we see here?
(cross-posted)
No comments:
Post a Comment