[Zev]

Point. Its late for me and I got slightly jumbled up. You're absolutely right that Romania was the most violent of the revolutions and that I shouldn't have included them in the lacking violence part. I've edited the original post to mention this.

Even still, it could have been much worse; the revolution could have failed. And it lead to a stable government that successfully transitioned between parties afterwards. And the Romanian economy is doing fairly well. I'd call that a pretty remarkable success, given how spectacular the failures in Eastern Europe are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections.

I haven't really read much about this, Romanian elections being fraudulent. Don't suppose you could recommend a few good news articles or other data (books or papers, perhaps) on the subject (Romania after 1989, not just elections specifically)? The Wikipedia article doesn't have any citation for it either.

[ATB]

Henry F. Carey; East European Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1995, "Irregularities or Rigging: The 1992 Romanian Parliamentary Elections"

[Zev]

And something more recent to show that the trend has continued? Romania has elections every 4 years, I believe. That paper was published after one round of elections. There's been a few rounds since.