it's a week old, but i just found it.
i can't say i agree with a lot of the rankings. kazakhstan should be a lot lower than #30 (i think there is no realistic chance of a revolt there, unless president nazarbayev dies suddenly). and as the commentators highlighted in this post point out, it's a total mystery why kyrgyzstan and tajikistan aren't on the list. unlike the other central asian nations that are on the list, those two have a history of civil unrest (tajikistan had a full-fledged civil war in the 1990s and kyrgyzstan chased out its president just last year).
i suspect these kinds of rankings are always crap. the most interesting thing is the description of the methodology. the fact that the results don't look right, raises the question of where the rankings went wrong. that, in turn, raises the question of what factors should be considered more or less important in leading to civil unrest.
i can't say i agree with a lot of the rankings. kazakhstan should be a lot lower than #30 (i think there is no realistic chance of a revolt there, unless president nazarbayev dies suddenly). and as the commentators highlighted in this post point out, it's a total mystery why kyrgyzstan and tajikistan aren't on the list. unlike the other central asian nations that are on the list, those two have a history of civil unrest (tajikistan had a full-fledged civil war in the 1990s and kyrgyzstan chased out its president just last year).
i suspect these kinds of rankings are always crap. the most interesting thing is the description of the methodology. the fact that the results don't look right, raises the question of where the rankings went wrong. that, in turn, raises the question of what factors should be considered more or less important in leading to civil unrest.
