Russia ate NATO’s carrot

With Russian troops now within 25 miles of Tbilisi, the U.S. has stepped up its tough talk on Russia.  But regardless of how the military situation plays out, the democracy agenda has been dealt a serious blow.

Press Conference

Today, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice gave a joint press conference with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.  Saakashvili decried looting and what he referred to as “ethnic cleansing” by Russian forces and irregulars.  He also made grim reference to a report released yesterday by Human Rights Watch blaming 11 civilian deaths and several injuries on the Russian use of cluster bombs, which Saakashvili called “an inhuman weapon.”  [In the interest of full disclosure, the United States does not renounce the use of cluster bombs.]

Saakashvili called the Russian invasion an effort “to kill Georgian democracy, and to end the independence of Georgia.”  He defiantly added, “Russia has lots of tanks, but no tank is enough to crush the will of a free people.”

The Response of International Institutions

For her part, Secretary Rice demanded that Russia respect the ceasefire agreement signed today, and withdraw its forces from Georgia.  (At the time, they were a mere 25 miles away.)  She also called on the international community to hurry to provide observers and a peacekeeping force, which would deny Russia an excuse to stay.  The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) began to take steps that would up its current number of observers in Georgia from 200 to 300, but this would require all 56 member-states to sign off.

Meanwhile in Washington, President Bush delivered a strong condemnation of Moscow at the White House.  In it, he said the U.S. would work with members of the G-7 to resolve the crisis, thus seemingly kicking Russia out of the G-8 club with one word.  This would follow on the heels on Monday’s conference call among foreign ministers of the G-8 sans Russia.  This kind of diplomatic response is a sure step in the right direction, but a sign that the West is nowhere near prepared to bare its teeth.  No surprise there – if it were, this would never have happened.

HEY!  Who ate our carrot?

Which leaves one questioning the relevance of NATO.  Before the Russian invasion, Georgia was actively trying to join NATO.  The U.S. was pressing other members on its behalf, without success.  In a world where Russia is expected to keep quietly to itself, the U.S. could offer the prospect of NATO membership as an inducement to states to implement democratic reforms.  Reforms would gradually take place, and the entire eastern European neighborhood would benefit from having more democratically inclined neighbors in it. 

But now the calculus is quite different.  With the real Russia unmasked for all the world to see, joining NATO becomes much more serious business for all parties concerned, for several reasons.  First, with the United States tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, an American promise to come to the aid of aggrieved European allies looks – for the foreseeable future – a lot like an empty threat.  This means that even as countries like Georgia and Ukraine want NATO membership with increasing urgency, it stands to do them less and less good.  They could bend over backwards to implement reforms – right up until the Russians marched in.

Second, even if we had a free hand, our security policy would likely trump our democracy policy, as it has many times before.  In a rush to extend NATO membership, the United States would be willing to overlook democratic gains – or lack thereof.

Third, even if we had a free hand and prospective members suddenly became advanced consolidated democracies, a Russian menace decreases the likelihood that any of our other NATO partners want to risk war with Russia by entering into an alliance.

All of this spells trouble for the democracy agenda.  

Georgia result

Via IFES, the AP reports “a nearly complete vote count from Wednesday’s election indicates Saakashvili’s party will hold about 120 of the Parliament’s 150 seats.”

Last week I wrote that electoral “reforms” in Georgia were not actually reformist. While March legislation lowered the threshold for entering parliament from 7 to 5 percent, simultaneous decreases in the total number of seats and proportion of them elected under PR would be new hurdles for small parties. Reform, in other words, would benefit Saakashvili, not his opponents.

Now the main opposition party is threatening to boycott its mere 14 seats. Coverage of protests keeps pointing at fraud, but the electoral rules appear to have been the main source of opposition squeeze.

Glancing at preliminary results from the nominal tier, the ruling United National Movement is the clear leader in most districts. Yet it frequently has less than a majority, and other parties sometimes have sizable vote shares. In the list tier, the UNM is reported to have won 61 percent of votes.

Recall that one “reform” reduced the share of PR seats from 100 to 75. If one considers that no election was held under original provisions for the 150-member parliament, “reform” actually reduced the PR share from 150 of 235 seats at the 2004 election to 75 of 150 today.

The net effect of “reform” was less proportional representation and more first-past-the-post, regardless of what Saakashvili did to the PR threshold. That’s how he’s winning 80 percent of seats on 61 percent of votes.

Georgia votes: lower threshold but lower magnitude

RFE/RL optimistically reports that Georgian president Saakashvili has reduced the threshold from 7 to 5 percent for the list tier of that country’s parliamentary elections. Of course, today’s elections are for a much smaller parliament with far fewer seats elected under PR rules than in 2004. Despite the optimism, this probably will result in a smaller opposition seat share.

Since winning reelection, a seemingly humbled Saakashvili has taken pains to show that he understands the mood of both the electorate and the opposition, enacting a series of electoral reforms his supporters say are meant to boost confidence in the elections.

What “humbled” Saakashvili was his “close call in [a] snap presidential election four months ago,” according to the news service. Yet he won with over 53 percent, 18 points ahead of the runner-up. Such is his standard for competitiveness.

As usual, the details of the new system depend on the source. The overall picture since 2004 is fewer seats in general and fewer elected proportionally.

According to the electoral law, last updated 17-12-07, 50 members are elected in single-member districts and 100 are elected from party lists (Art. 91). The threshold was 7 percent, and seat allocation is by Hare quota with largest remainder (Art. 105).

IFES’ Election Guide says the 2004 elections proceeded with 75 single-member districts, 150 list seats and 10 seats reserved to “displaced persons.” Via ACE Project, the same organization says this is the system in place. The 2008 Election Guide entry, however, reports a 150-seat parliament with 75 list and 75 district seats. That is consonant with RFE/RL’s report and others.

Angus-Reid has a good description of the politics of the electoral law. Saakashvili’s allies in parliament approved the 75-75 system on March 21, with opposition leaders balking in favor of the 50-100 system, which is the one on the books as published.

Reuters, via the Washington Post, says opposition leaders accuse the president of “rigging” the elections. More problematic than outright fraud, it seems, is a lack of basic agreement (even clarity?) on the details of seat allocation.

It flies in the face of cynical reason to think the president would increase opposition prospects in response to his own electoral “close call.” More important than reducing the threshold to 5 percent, an opposition-inclusive reform, is reducing the PR tier from 150 to 75 seats, which is opposition-exclusive. A glance at the 2004 results-by-region at Electoral Geography shows why. Saakashvili’s National Movement polled an average 69.4 percent. The median share for his party was 71.8 percent. The overall effect of “reform,” I suspect, will be to further weaken opposition. The more small districts, the more seats for Saakashvili. Reducing average district magnitude is what matters here. Lowering the threshold is an empty gesture.

Do States of Emergency Come in Threes?

Georgian President Saakashvili, after facing days of protests, declares a state of emergency.

The country’s principal opposition news outlet, Imedi TV, went off the air at night amid reports that a special forces unit had entered the station’s offices. The phones of the television station did not answer calls, and government officials could not be immediately reached to answer questions about the station’s evident shutdown.

No word yet if Saakashvili instituted the state of emergency in order to prevent the country from coming under control of Islamic extremists located in the Northwest Province of Pakistan.