Well, yeah, but I was just trying to say that the only people who had any experience with administration in e.g. Poland were former Communists, for obvious reasons. People running around publishing samizdat aren't usually experts on city planning.
Russia's a big exception to this. -----Original Message----- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 07:41:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition > of course, back when they ran "communist countries," they tried to make sure that > no-one else _could_ govern unless they'd already proved their loyalty... > Jim D. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Chris Doss" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sat 3/6/2004 3:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition > > > > I don't know about the Romanian situation in particular, but one reason why > former "Communist" leaders are in power thruought EE is that they are the only ones > with experience in actually running a country. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:46:35 -0800 > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition > > > given how bad the Rumanian government was before Ceaucescu was overthrown, I > find the view presented by NPR poet-commentator to be a bit more plausible: the same > thugs that ruled before the "revolution" ended up in power afterwards (with the > notable exception of Ceaucescu and his family). > > > > >
