Because although the current system is not perfect it has proved to be good enough. What can and should instead be immediately improved is the level of debate across the political spectrum as to how to fix our ailing society. See, we didn't really get any debate on electoral manifestos during the last three general elections. I don't think that makes our democracy more vibrant. And we have seen what economic groupthink has done to Ramgoolam's political fortunes in 5 short years.
Still, if we insist on getting distracted with electoral reform I think we should involve as many people as possible. And there's no easier way of doing this than for the Prime Minister to put all the working documents online. Today. And anybody who feels he has written anything good about this topic should do the same.
For sure we don't want a parliament of a 100 lawmakers: we already have too many who don't contribute anything interesting. And we don't want the names of political leaders to also appear on party lists if ever a dose of PR were to be considered. Nah, these TINA-like suggestions should be brushed aside.
Still, if we insist on getting distracted with electoral reform I think we should involve as many people as possible. And there's no easier way of doing this than for the Prime Minister to put all the working documents online. Today. And anybody who feels he has written anything good about this topic should do the same.
For sure we don't want a parliament of a 100 lawmakers: we already have too many who don't contribute anything interesting. And we don't want the names of political leaders to also appear on party lists if ever a dose of PR were to be considered. Nah, these TINA-like suggestions should be brushed aside.
4 comments:
Nice point on the possible excessive number of parliamentarians. But institutionalised communalism and under-representation of women are 2 major failings of our current system. These areas call for a constitutional reform.
Tell me what makes you say that communalism has been institutionalised.
Under-representation of women: yes I agree. But what prevents 60 women from setting up a party and convincing us with a manifesto and otherwise that they are serious about moving our country forward. Does our constitution prevent this?
Do we want lame politicians appointing more lame politicians just on the basis of their gender?
What if we add a line to the Constitution to make it explicitly blind to communalism? Which of the existing political party has balls to put that on their electoral manifesto and implement it?
But still, there is need for a political reform. How can a democracy accept that a party with 44% of votes gets no MP? That's why when two less weak parties meet together in an alliance, with 50+ votes, they get 60 out of 60 seats! A reform is warranted....but humbly, I opine that we should not be having more than 60 MPs, which is already too many for a 1.3 million pop.
Post a Comment