Ukraine Right or Wrong

Was Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko right to call for parliamentary elections? This is a question that in recent days has been the subject of intense debate. Constitutionally, he seems to be on the slippery slope. Still, his argument that "it is not only my right, it is my obligation" might prove valid if he acted in the spirit of the constitution as its supreme patron. The core question is though how advisable it is for state to have a constitution, which allows for such a situation to occur.

Imagine, for a moment, that the US Congress would act not only to impeach the president, but also actively prepare to abolish the office of the president itself.

For an American this would be absurd, as the fundamental idea of the founding fathers was a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judical powers, as inspired by Montesquieu. This separation of powers' system is also the foundation of most modern democracies, and usually there are elaborate mechanisms to avoid situations that risk jeopardising the stability provided by the checks and balances of independent centres of power. Paradoxically, this seems not to be the case in the Ukraine, as recent developments demonstrate.

The 8 December 2004 deal ending the Orange revolution involved changes to the Ukrainian constitution to limit the great powers of the presidential office, previously enjoyed by Leonid Kuchma. This was the price the leaders of the Orange revolution paid to get the fraudulent presidential 23 November elections invalidated. However, the changes did not enter into force until 1 January 2006.

As the Ukrainian constitution now works, the parliament has the right to override presidential vetoes if a qualified majority of 300 out of 450 deputies so decides. Such a majority also has the option to make constitutional changes, and even abolish the office of the president itself. Thus, article 155 of the Constitution reads:

Introducing Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine, previously adopted by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, is deemed to be adopted, if at the next regular session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine have voted in favour thereof.

Still, the provision of decisions by two separate parliamentary sessions with elections in between, seems somewhat obscure, as the changes made in December 2004 appear to have entered into force before the March 2006 elections. It is therefore possible that the Verkhovna Rada may change the constitution by a single decision of a two-third's majority.

A further mechanism to counter quick and unpredictable changes between elections may be § 83 of the constitution, which can be interpreted as preventing deputies to change loyalties between parliamentary fractions, as a coalition is to be formed by fractions and not individual deputies. This reasoning seems both obscure and ambiguous, but has been a key argument for the president to protest against the fact that an increasing number of MPs from his party, Our Ukraine, have changed allegiances in favour of the Party of Regions. As votes were thus added to the anti-presidential coalition in parliament, the situation eventually became desperate, as Yushchenko's enemies were closing in on the 300 deputies margin. If this was allowed to happen, a qualified parliamentary majority could deal with the president as they saw fit, and eventually even depose of him.

Then, in which situations is the President actually allowed to call for new parliamentary elections? The answer given by constitutional article 90 set three provisions:

1. If the parliament cannot reach a majority (coalition) to form a government within thirty days after the first meeting of a newly elected parliament.
2. If a coalition cannot reach a majority to form a new government within 60 days after the resignation of a prior government.
3. If parliament during session has not met for a period of 30 days.

It is quite obvious that Yushchenko did not fulfill any of the above criteria when signing the decree to disband parliament and call for new elections. Consequently, if reading the Constitution to its letter, Yushchenko had no right to do this. So, does that mean that he was completely off his rocker when he decided to make this move? Not necessarily. The argument that he acted in the spirit of the constitution as its supreme patron is certainly valid. As president, Yushchenko may perceivably have "the right and the obligation" to act if a situtation occurs, which threatens the constitutional order.

When such a case is applicable is however unclear. One prerequisite might be if parliament had a clear and expressed intent to jeopardise the constitutional order. The requirements to be fulfilled in meeting the prerequisite of intent is however very obscure. Thus, the matter has been referred by parliament to the Constitutional Court for a ruling.

Until recently, it was very uncertain whether the Constitutional Court would choose to address the matter. According to its statutes, it has 15 days to decide whether it at all will deliberate on an issue raised by parliament. Then it was declared that the Court would make its ruling on Wednesday this week. However, today five of the 18 judges said that they considered resigning due to public threats against them, and asked for police protection. Now, the court ruling has been delayed until 17 April.

Reviewing the composition of the Court, it consists of eigtheen members: 6 judges, 6 parliamentarians and 6 presidential appointees. The five now concerned represent all three groups. Still, the Court could also choose to make a ruling even without the participation of the five members, as it only needs 10 of its members to make a ruling. That the Court could get a majority decision in this way is still very unlikely. Essentially, the question is whether the Court will make a ruling at all. That is highly questionable, as the developing crisis may render its opinion obsolete even if it could finally reach a verdict.

All in all, President Yushchenko seems to stand on weak ground as for his decision to disband parliament and call for new elections. However, this does not mean that he may not stand his ground in the battle over its legitimacy. As events are evolving, new elections on 27 May seem to be the only sensible option to end the current conflict democratically. Consequently, the question whether his decision was right or wrong may never really be legally addressed. In terms of politics, his choice was a "catch 22" and whatever choice he made - be deposed by parliament or call for new elections - it was to come out bad for himself. The political verdict on Yushchenko may therefore be hard, as he for too long walked an increasingly thin line in exercisising his presidential duties. Still, whether Yushchenko was right or wrong is not the core issue. The important thing is whether his decision will eventually turn out to be right or wrong for Ukraine and its people. After all, that was what the Orange revolution was originally about - giving a voice to the people.

Update: According to the BBC, Yushchenko would now be "willing to suspend his decree dissolving parliament and ordering an early 27 May election." This would constitute a postponement of parliamentary elections, so that parties can prepare for an election campaign, and not a change of opinion in that elections should be held. Thus, it is a signal that Yushchenko might be willing to compromise on the date for elections, but still carry through with the process. How it all ends up is very uncertain and it remains to be seen how Yanukovich supporters and other parties will react to this feeler.

Chicken Kiev Race

Chicken race was a perilous game among youngsters in the US during the 1950s, said to originate from East European immigrants. The game models two car drivers, both headed towards each other at high speed. The first to swerve away yields to the other. If neither player swerves, the result is a potentially fatal head-on collision.

Chicken race is an influential model of conflict for two players in game theory. The principle of the game is that while each player prefers not to yield to the opponent, the outcome where neither player yields is the worst possible one for both players.

Chicken Kiev is a dish of boneless chicken breast pounded and rolled around cold unsalted butter, then breaded and fried.

Chicken Kiev is also the label used by the media for a speech made in Kiev in 1991 by then U.S. President George H.W. Bush. It was drafted by Condoleezza Rice and cautioned Ukrainians against "suicidal nationalism". A few months later, Ukrainians voted to withdraw from the Soviet Union.

Source: Wikipedia

As Ukraine's "Easter Crisis" continues, further comments seem superfluous. Instead, I wish all friends, colleagues, and readers out there a Happy Easter.

Shootout at the Ukraine Corral?

Will Viktor Yushchenko remain president of Ukraine? This is what is currently in the balance in the ongoing political crisis in Kiev. In what seems as a final showdown between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yanukovych, the president on Monday dissolved parliament and called for new elections on 27 May. By doing so, Yushchenko may well have signed his own political death warrant. There is little chance that his Our Ukraine will survive elections as a leading player in Ukrainian politics, making the president a lame duck for the remainder of his term.

The current shootout revolves around a battle over life and death for the presidency. Since last year, Yanukovych has won over an increasing number of parliament deputies to the point where he threatened to blow Yushchenko's position to smithereens. Yanukovych was quickly approaching the 300 out of 450 votes in parliament - Verkhovna Rada - necessary to change the constitution and override presidential vetoes. This might also have included abolishing the very office of the president.

Yushchenko's move now forces Yanukovych to take the fight to the high-street, instead of the back alleys where he until now has battled for parliamentary votes. The showdown has been underway since Saturday, when nearly 100,000 people demonstrated in central Kiev in support of the two combattants. As usual in Kiev, the orange forces took centre stage, gathering some 70,000 demonstrators calling for dissolving parliament and new parliamentary elections. Nearby, about 20,000 of Yanukovych's followers met in support of the current government. The stage was thus set for the country's biggest political duel since the 2004 Orange revolution.

Proclaiming elections by a televised speech on Monday evening, Yushchenko said: "My actions are dictated by the strict necessity to save the state's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is not only my right, it is my obligation." Parliamentary elections would thus curve the "Deliberate efforts [that] are being made in parliament to worsen the political crisis, posing a threat to our country and people."

Crisis has become the hallmark of Ukrainian politics since last year's March parliamentary elections. Even though Yanukovych and his Party of Regions stood as the clear election victors, the Orange forces of Our Ukraine and the Timoshenko Bloc did their utmost to form a coalition government barring Yanukovych from power. After months of negotiations and under the threat of new elections, the Orange coalition was proclaimed dead and Yanukovych became Prime Minister. Ever since, President Yushchenko has fought a losing battle to balance an increasingly powerful Yanukovych government.

The question now is who will form the biggest posse for power in the upcoming 27 May fight between orange and blue forces in Ukraine. Yanukovych's power base is solid, with massive financial backing from several mighty oligarchs. In contrast, Yushchenko is badly armed for elections, with a party deemed to become the first victim of this political duel. In essence, Yulia Timoshenko will stand the most to gain from an election campaign, establishing her role as the undisputed leader of the orange forces and the only real alternative to Yanukovych.

For Yushchenko, the choice was between being removed as president or calling for new elections, where he is bound to become the first victim. His choice was to accept the challenge as he was called out into the street by the orange forces on Saturday. Thereby, the only thing left for Yushchenko is to witness his own political death struggle for the remainder of his presidency. Still, calling for new elections was not only his right - it was his obligation. This is perhaps also what will be written on his political tombstone: "He had the right and - finally - rose to his obligations."

Update: In response to Yushchenko's decree for parliamentary elections, Yanukovych's supporters have now called for presidential instead of parliamentary elections. They refer to Yushchenko's decision as an attempted coup d'état and have declared that parliament will not grant the financial means necessary to go through with parliamentary elections. It is not unlikely that Yushchenko's decision to dissolve parliament will serve Yanukovych's interests in winning over the remaining votes necessary to gain the qualified 300 out of 450 qualified majority to make constitutional changes and eventually depose the president. A parliament dissolved by the president would thus decide to remove Yushchenko from his office or abolish the presidency as a whole. The complications this would cause are immense, and it is diffcult to foresee what further ramifications it would involve. Furthermore, the conflict has been referred to the Constitutional Court, consisting of 18 members: 6 presidential representatives, 6 parliamentary, and 6 judicial. What will happen if the Court does not reach a decision within the stipulated five days is hard to determine at this point. It is also said that the Election Commission, which was so hated during the Orange revolution, will be reconvened.

Estonia's New Coalition Government

After weeks of negotiations, an agreement on a new coalition government in Estonia was today finally reached. Thus, for the next four years, Estonia will be ruled by a government of Reformists, the Pro Patria and Res Publica Union (IRL), and the Social Democrats. That is, if the coalition partners will be able to see eye to eye in the long run.

Until now, the track record for Estonian governments has for most part been less than a year in office. Still, the 4 March election results proved an exception from this rule, as the Prime Minister, Andrus Ansip, retained support for staying in office for the first time since Estonia regained independence in 1991. Consequently, the main goal of coalition talks seems to have been to maintain the political stability that the elections formed a basis for.

Still, as previously reported, next to everything seemed up for grabs after the 4 March parliamentary elections. The only clear thing was that Prime Minister Ansip's Reform Party would take the lead in government formation talks. Who the other government coalition partners would be was however unclear. How great an importance that in the end would be given to a broader and more stable government was the great question in Tallinn. Speculations on a grand coalition have been frequent and for long there were many indications in this direction. One obvious result of the coalition now formed is that the Reformists have left out both their old coalition partners in the previous government, namely the Centre Party and the People's Union.

That Edgar Savisaar's Centre Party would not form part of a new government came as no surprise, as Reformists and Centrists had been the main contenders for power during the election campaign. However, also the Estonian People's Union was left out, which may be attributed to its losing almost half its votes in the elections.

Still, this was not a foregone conclusion as also the Pro Patria and Res Publica Union (IRL), which forms part of the new government coalition, suffered a similar fate. The conservative IRL was previously the biggest opposition party in parliament - the Riigikogu - but what perhaps was decisive for including the IRL was that its election loss was expected in contrast to that of the People's Union. It was also quite clear at an early stage that Reformist coalition-builder Ansip would opt for including the IRL in the new government.

One potential partner that particpated in the race for government power was the Green Party, which entered parliament for the first time by the elections. That this did not become the case was probably due to the same reasons motivating its inclusion: It might have proven quite gullible for the other coalition parties once in government. Consequently, Green Party leader Marek Strandberg characterised the reasons for leaving coalition talks thus: "The current situation reminds us of a school excursion to the Tallinn meat factory, after which the temptation to test the sausage considerably diminishes."

As the Green Party abandoned coalition talks, Prime Minister Ansip was left to broker a deal with the Social Democrats. In the end, it turned out that the Reformists and the IRL would have to pay a high price for winning over the Social Democrats. All in all, the coalition package will be a staggering 47 billion kroons - the equivalent of 3 billion euros - for covering the reforms of the three government partners. Such state expenditures will only add to Estonia's problems of an already precariously overheated economy.

The costly coalition deal has led to massive critique from Centre Party leader Edgar Savisaar. The Centrists themselves were heavily criticised during the election campaign for making irresponsible and populist promises of expensive reforms that might topple the Estonian economy. For the Centrists, this might have proven a decisive factor for losing the elections. Thus, Savisaar now argues that "Ansip has chosen the road to Golgotha for the new government." This might well be true, but such a statement also raises the question whether the Centre Party may reach resurrection in the next elections. It is true that Savisaar will only be 61 years old in 2011, but considering his health problems, he might well exit the political stage much earlier. Thus, rumours of his political immortality may be greatly exaggerated. Without Savisaar's dominant and all-exclusive leadership of the Centrists, the party would probably fall apart within weeks, as there is no clear successor, and nobody could shoulder Savisaar's role of constant fighter. Perhaps, there is no wonder that his wife, Vilja Savisaar, takes an increasingly active part in the party's top-level decision-making.

Still, regardless of Savisaar's future, the Centre Party is on the retreat. The Estonian people decisively opted for political stability and continued reform and modernisation to fully integrate with the European Union. Here, the Centrists have little to offer. The great challenge now for the new government is to realise the people's hopes. Regrettably, the costly coalition deal fares ill for the new government's prospects to fulfill the hopes for the brighter future the Estonians so much desire.

Update: Mart Laar on Thursday declared that he will himself not seek inclusion in the new Estonian cabinet. Instead, he will concentrate on developing the new Pro Patria and Res Publica Union (IRL) to seek leadership of the unified party. Stepping aside of government duties also gives Laar the opportunity to lead IRL in the 2011 elections without the political burden a cabinet post might have involved.

A surprise in the new cabinet is the inclusion of Jüri Pihl as Minister of the Interior. Pihl has previously headed the Estonian security police (KAPO), and also been Prosecutor General. Until now, Pihl has been unpolitical, but will now represent the Social Democrats in cabinet, which further strengthens the impression of a coming SDE stronghold on Estonian politics. Pihl is widely believed to have close relations with Western structures and has also been close to Aleksander Einseln, former Commander in Chief of the Estonian Armed Forces.

Minsk Opposition Rally Gathers 15,000

This Sunday saw the biggest opposition demonstrations in Minsk since the April protests against the presidential elections last year, prolonging Lukashenka's rule over Belarus. An estimated 15,000 demonstrators gathered in front of the Academy of Sciences to listen to Alyaksandr Milinkevich and other opposition leaders, in commemoration of the first shortlived Belarusian National Republic of 1918.

This time, authorities used milder methods to thwart the demonstrations than the violence seen last year. Thus, some 50 opposition activists throughout Belarus had been arrested prior to the rally, in order to complicate its organisation. The march was also led away from the city centre, and police repeatedly urged people to dissolve the "illegal demonstration." Furthermore, the Lukashenka regime had staged a number of concerts to draw attention away from the opposition rally.

Demonstrations must be seen as a test of oppositional strength and resilience. The opposition has for long been torn by internal struggles and conflicts, which has been skilfully exploited by the Lukashenka regime. With increasingly strained relations to Moscow, Lukashenka has recently signalled rapprochement and dialogue with the West, and here the predominantly western-oriented opposition is once again seen as an obstacle to the president's plans.

Speaking at the rally, former presidential candidate, Alyaksandr Milinkevich, called for political freedom and for the long-term inclusion of Belarus into the European Union. Referring to the international isolation of the Lukashenka regime, Milinkevich said: "We should understand that we are not alone. The democratic world and Europe stand together with us."

As a token of oppositional unity, the demonstration must be seen as a great success. Still, the opposition coalition remains fundamentally divided, and Alyaksandr Kozulin, who came second in last year's presidential elections, is currently serving a 5 1/2 year prision sentence for his political activities. So, as Milinkevich called out to the masses that "We are the majority! We will win!" it is questionable if this is enough to overthrow the Lukashenka regime. As long as the opposition remains divided, majority is not the issue - unity is.

Politkovskaya's Heritage Lives On

Today, public readings of texts by Anna Politkovskaya will be held in 20 countries and 80 places worldwide. With half a year passed since the heinous murder of Russian journalist and regime critic Politkovskaya, she now stands out as an international symbol for the freedom of speech.

This is the second year that the German Peter Weiss Foundation organises international public readings disclosing political lies, and it is intended that 20 March will henceforth serve as an "Anniversary of the Political Lie." Last year's event was dedicated to the lies surrounding the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The Weiss Foundation initiative is supported by a number of prominent organisations worldwide, among which are International PEN and Reporters Without Borders. That this year's event is dedicated to the memory of Anna Politkovskaya and the exposed position of journalists in Russia, is a worthy tribute to Politkovskaya's commitment to reveal the truth and expose the abuse of power. Today, her voice is heard worldwide, advocating freedom of speech and an open society.

Russia Silences its Free Voices?

Will the Kremlin's grip on Russian freedom of speech tighten further? This fear has grown stronger in recent days, as president Putin this week decided to merge two state agencies responsible for media and communication. The new superauthority may pose a serious threat to both independent media and a free blogosphere in Russia. The agency will both control the media and the technical means for delivering it.

On 12 March, president Putin signed a decree "On a Federal Monitoring Service in the sphere of mass media, communications, and protection of the cultural heritage." Accordingly, agencies responsible for monitoring media, Rosokhrankultura, and communications, Rossvyaznadzor, are to be merged. The new agency will thus be given the powers to comprehensively monitor both printed and Internet media, increasing possibilities for sanctions against the whole spectre of media coverage. This includes not only electronic media but also the Russian blogosphere, e.g. by keeping records on and intervening against oppositional bloggers.

As it already is, the position of Russian regular media is precarious to say the least. Except murders and mysterious deaths of critical journalists on what must now be regarded a regular basis, it has become everyday business for Russian government and financial interests to impose pressure on various media to sack journalists that will not go with the stream. For example, in 2004, Raf Shakirov was sacked from Izvestiya due to his coverage of Beslan, and last year Gazeta.ru got an official warning for writing about the Danish Mohammed drawings. These are also some of the voices who have now protested against Putin's new decree.

What is most worrisome with the new agency is that it possesses all means necessary to suppress the freedom of speech exercised in printed media and on the Internet. Thus, the agency will issue and revoke licences for both media publication and technology. Furthermore, the agency will have the resources to also monitor all forms of media, providing it with the tools necessary to quickly intervene whenever information is deemed "unfit" for public consumption.

All in all, this means that previous restrictions on printed and televised media now will be extended to all forms of online media, including the blogosphere. With these powers, the agency may close down servers hosting "inappropriate material," trace individual users - read bloggers - and bring charges against people exercising their freedom of speech, if it contradicts the interests of state.

As traditional media in Russia has been increasingly curtailed in its freedoms during the Putin presidency, the demand for alternative media has drastically increased. Here, the blogosphere has offered the forum for the free exchange of thought and ideas no longer granted the official media. Today, the Russian blogger community is the second largest on the American blog provider LiveJournal, or Живой Журнал (ЖЖ), as it is commonly referred to by Russian bloggers.

Internet has offered people an alternative arena to freely express the diversity of views we normally associate with exercising the unalienable rights of modern society. Now, the Russian government once more turns against the very same constitutional principles that it is set to uphold. In such a Russia, Big Brother watches you: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. The question for the future is: Who will first shout "Down with big brother!"

Latvia: From President to Film Star?

With only a few months left in office, Latvian president Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga might ponder upon her future career. Having failed to become UN Secretary General, she soon enters a new life - possibly as a movie star. Admittedly, this might be a grave exaggeration, as the film in question will be a documentary on Vīķe-Freiberga, and thus probably not a box-office hit.

As a new president will move into Riga castle on 1 July this year - possibly Foreign Minister Sandra Kalniete - Vīķe-Freiberga might reflect upon how to assume her rightful role in history books. However, she might not have to think for long, as a documentary film on her life has recently been put into production.

The documentary is to illustrate Vīķe-Freiberga's lifetime achievements against the backdrop of Latvian history from the 1920s. The director, Vilnis Kalnaellis, will have full access to the presidential film and video archives. The "Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga story" will not be opening at theatres before the end of the year, but the film is intended to be launched on the international as well as the domestic market.

However, public expectations might be higher for a potential sequel in four years' time - possibly starring Sandra Kalniete. The fact is that a "Sandra Kalniete story" might prove much more interesting for a movie audience than that of Vīķe-Freiberga.

In 2001, Kalniete published a book about the deportation of her family to Siberia during the Stalin era - With dancing shoes in Siberian snows (Ar balles kurpēm Sibīrijas sniegos). The story of her early life became an international bestseller and Kalniete was awarded several literary prizes for the book. So, one should perhaps keep one's fingers crossed for Kalniete to assume the Latvian presidency this spring - at least if you are a documentary film bum.

What Government for Estonia?

Defying all odds and opinion polls, the Reform Party stands as victor of Estonia's parliamentary elections this Sunday. Thus, Savisaars populist Centre Party was beaten by a close 1.7% margin. Together, the two reluctant coalition partners now form a majority of votes in the Estonian Parliament - the Riigikogu. It is, however, too early to say if Reformists and Centrists will continue their government cohabitation. In essence, the upcoming government formation may present almost any combination of parties in a coalition cabinet.

Sunday's election results must be characterised as a landslide victory for the Reformist Party, led by Prime Minister Andrus Ansip. The party went from 17.7% support (19 seats) in the 2003 parliamentary elections to 27.8% (31 seats) now, thus increasing its support by 10% of the electorate. Thus, the Reformists will dominate the 101 seats' parliament as its single largest party, and Ansip has also been asked to form a new government by President Ilves. Ansip is also the first Estonian Prime Minister to survive an election, and the second Baltic after Latvia's Aigars Kalvītis. This does not necessarily mean that the current government coalition will remain in power. To the contrary, the election campaign has been very tough between the main coalition partners - Reformists and Centrists. Still, it might be a good idea to keep track of reservations at Tallinn restaurant Balthasar in coming days, to see whether a new "garlic coalition" may be reformed.

Concerning Edgar Savisaars Centre Party, it held its ground, and went from 25.4% (28 seats) in 2003 to 26.1% (29 seats) in the current elections. Due to the mentioned antagonism between the Centrists and Reformists during the election campaign, few observers believe that the parties will continue their government cohabitation. Still, together they would form an absolute majority in the Riigikogu, which might partly serve as a convenient solution to governability and partly marginalise the opposition. Despite indications to the contrary, this option should not be too lightly ruled out.

As for the third government coalition partner, the Estonian People's Union, the party remains in parliament, although almost halving its votes from 13% (13 seats) in 2003 to the now 7.1% (6 seats). The People's Union is a populist and nationalist agrarian party. The party, founded by former president Arnold Rüütel, has been in government with both the Reformists and Res Publica (now IRL - cf. below), and was also a coalition partner in the outgoing Ansip cabinet. Consequently, it might prove very convenient for Ansip to form a consistent right-wing government of Reformists, IRL, and the People's Party.

What might, at first sight, appear as the great election loser is the Pro Patria and Res Publica Union (IRL). In comparison to 2003, the party went from 31.9% (35 seats) to Sunday's result of merely 17.9% (19 seats). This result was however expected, and IRL actually had a stronger showing than expected. Last spring, the two conservative parties - Pro Patria and Res Publica - merged to unify the conservative electorate, which also made it Estonia's biggest opposition party. However, prior to unification, Juhan Parts' Res Publica government had been ousted, marginalising the party in Estonian politics. In view of this, the unified party's result in Sunday's elections was better than expected, despite the fact that it lost almost half its seats in parliament. Some of this loss may also be attributed to the Christian Democrats, which competed for the same votes as IRL and did not reach the 5% parliamentary threshold. As for IRL's potential for forming part of a new government, Reform Party leader Ansip hinted in this direction before the Sunday elections. However, judging from results, a Reformist-IRL coalition would need a third party to form a workable parliamentary majority. Together, the two parties occupy 50 parliamentary seats, falling below absolute majority by a single seat.

Such a partner might well be the Social Democrats, which also increased its votes from 7% (6 seats) in 2003 to 10.6% (10 seats) now. Prime Minister Ansip has also hinted that a leftist alternative might be preferrable, but whether this might include the Social Democrats or the Centre Party is unclear. Personal animosity between leading Reformists and Social Democrats is a factor that must be calculated with in this context, and in the end this might rule out a Social Democratic role in government.

Another alternative to a non-centrist government is the newcomer to Estonian politics, namely the Green Party. With 7.1% of votes (6 seats) they passed the parliamentary threshold with a wide margin. Speaking for such an alternative would be that a new party might be quite gullible for the other coalition parties once in government. A coalition between Reformists, the People's Union, and the Greens - as well as other combinations - is an unexptected option that might present too tempting an alternative to resist for Ansip.

All in all, next to everything seems up for grabs at the moment. As the obvious government former, Reform Party leader Ansip might choose next to any coalition partners he sees fit, and the few contradictory indications he has made so far only add to the impression of an unpredictable political landscape in the country. Still, the main result of the elections is - as a matter of fact - that relative political stability has been achieved for the first time since Estonia regained independence in 1991. As its neighbour Latvia, Estonia now strengthens the tendency towards a more robust political system in the Baltic States. This, in itself, constitutes a great success, regardless of which parties in the end will form the next government.

Russia: The Death of a Journalist

Another mysterious death of a critical journalist mars Russian media, Kommersant reports. Ivan Safronov, aged 51, was found dead at the entry of his Moscow apartment building on Friday afternoon. Authorities label the death a suicide in lack of other viable explanations. Still, the tragedy remains an enigma to friends, colleagues and family, as Safronov had no obvious reason for committing suicide. This raises questions about foul play.

Ivan Safronov was a relatively well-known security and military reporter for the Russian newspaper Kommersant. As a retired colonel, he had unique insight into the workings of the Russian security community. Safronov was also known as an outspoken critic to influential groups among the so called siloviki. His openness sparked irritation amongst high-ranking security officials, and only the other years the Federal Security Service (FSB), made allegations against him for disclosing state secrets. However, charges were dropped since Safronov had shown that his sources were openly accessible on the Internet.

Concerning the circumstances surrounding Safronov's untimely demise, they are equally simple as enigmatic. As previously stated, the journalist was found dead at the entry of his Moscow apartment building. Apparently, he had fallen from a staircase window on the fifth floor of the house, situated a couple of floors above his own apartment. Left behind him on the landing was a bag of oranges, which only adds to the peculiarity of the case. There were no eyewitnesses to the event, although some students heard a loud thump, as Safronov apparently hit the ground. Calling for an ambulance, the students were rejected with the words: "We can't pick up every drunkard in Moscow on a Friday night."

Then, did anyone push Safronov out of the window? Probably not. He was quite a sturdy man, so throwing him out of a window would have taken at least a couple of people and had probably stired quite some commotion. Also, none of Safronov's neighbours heard anything, and there were no signs of struggle by the third floor window. Still, questions linger on among fellow journalists in both Russia and abroad. Hence, the propensity in the media to cite all circumstances surrounding Safronov's death.

So, should one assume that Safronov fell victim to enemies within the security establishment? As of now, there is no evidence to support this. Still, why Safronov would kill himself, as authorities assume, remains a mystery as there were no indications in this direction prior to his death. So, is the international attention to this case only an attempt to exploit the tragic death of an individual? Perhaps, and perhaps not. The reasons for Safronov's death will probably remain an enigma for posterity to solve. In the meantime, it will be recorded as the death of yet another critical Russian journalist, and thus only add to the image of how exposed the position of media is in current Russia. Let us but hope that this does not serve to obscure the human tragedy of Safronov's death.