GEORGIA
The leader: President Mikheil Saakashvili
Why he's got to go: Economic and foreign-policy incompetence. Russia might have started the war, and the global economy might be rocky, but Saakashvili's policies haven't helped.
The story: Georgia has deposed every one of its leaders since it gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Saakashvili, who came into power in the 2003 peaceful "Rose Revolution" and won an open election in January 2008, may be next.
The Georgian economy grew rapidly between 2004 and 2007 -- between the end of the country's political strife and the beginning of the global economic crisis. But much of Georgia's new wealth relied on foreign direct investment, which has dropped steeply, and little of it trickled down past the country's elites.
COMMENTS (0)
More...
The August 2008 war -- in which Russia sent troops deep into Georgia after Tbilisi tried to retake control of the separatist South Ossetia region -- did not help matters. It destroyed already tense relations with one of Georgia's largest trading partners and slashed direct foreign investment more than 50 percent. This left the country even more exposed to the continued and accelerated global downturn because Georgia requires more than $4 billion in support from foreign governments and organizations to stay afloat. Saakashvili himself called the current situation "a major existential struggle."
Saakashvili's response to the latest crisis -- the 20,000-person protests that have shut down Tbilisi for a week -- has been to point the finger at the Kremlin. But, even if Russia is funding the protesters, Saakashvili should focus on addressing their core complaints: corruption, lack of accountability, and politically motivated prosecutions that have targeted some of Saakashvili's opponents.
His one saving grace? The opposition candidates don't look much better.
THAILAND
The leader: Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva
Why he's got to go:
Politicking when he should be governing. Aiding the poor through the
downturn should be a bigger priority than scrapping with rivals.
The story:
Thailand has been in a state of political turmoil since 2006, when a
military coup ousted then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Ever
since, Thaksin, a wealthy businessman with strongly populist
tendencies, has continued to broadcast potent political messages to his
supporters in the country.
For the past month or so, up to 100,000 "red shirt" protesters who support Thaksin have rallied against Abhisit and periodically forced Bangkok to shut down. This month, protesters forced the government to call off a summit of leaders from the ASEAN trade bloc -- a tremendous embarrassment for Abhisit -- and provoked a military response that left two dead.
In all likelihood, Thaksin's Keynesian economic policies would benefit Thailand more than Abhisit's. But regardless of which man seizes power, one thing is certain: Their perpetual infighting has severely harmed the country. An Asian Development Bank economist said political turmoil may cause the economy to contract 5 percent this year, revising his estimate from 2 percent. If neither of the two men can gain control and provide peace, at least they should find a way to protect the Thai economy instead of driving away foreign investment, tourism, and assistance.
NEPAL
The leader: Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda
Why he's got to go: For failing to bring political or economic stabilization
The story:
For the past three years, royalists and Maoists in Nepal have engaged
in a peace process, following the ouster of the country's 240-year-old
monarchy after a long and bloody guerrilla war. With a coalition
government and new populist policies, the country has faced an
unprecedented political reconciliation challenge. The hardest part for
Nepal has been integrating its nearly 23,000 Maoist fighters into the
Army, once the strong arm of royal power, and creating a productive
legislative body.
The two rival sides have found it difficult to
work together. The remaining royalists have balked at many of the
populist proposals of the coalition government's Maoist leader,
Prachanda. And by moving to the center and making necessary political
changes, Prachanda risks alienating his partisans. For instance, a rule
about how minorities will be proportionally represented in Parliament
caused a series of ethnic flare-ups. Far-left protests have started to
occur in the countryside, threatening the tenuous political process.
It
doesn't augur well for the country. Any political problems will
necessarily compound its extraordinarily weak economic situation, just
as economic problems may spur political dissent. According to one
economist at the Asian Development Bank, "The country is already facing
the grave challenge of sustaining the growth and the poverty-reduction
gains of the past decade." This means Prachanda must maintain political
stability and avoid any violence at all costs -- or Nepal risks
catastrophe.
SUBJECTS:
(0)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE