Our Westminsterian system of government doesn't prevent our two biggest parties of getting together for the next general elections. They've done it already in 1995. They might want to do it again out of exasperation: tired of seeing the small tail wag the big dog.
But there is absolutely no need to rape our democracy with party lists and double-candidacies -- which will only bring us closer to a plutocracy -- for this alliance to happen. Let alone change the system of government. We've seen how much progress we've made with the present setup. We've also seen how ugly it got at the top of the Republic two years ago. Just imagine what would have happened if the President had more powers.
2 comments:
The constitution of the 50's with reduced number of ministers, or Joseph Tsang Man King's options seem to be the most appropriate for the cool-headed people of Mauritius. But they are being led into a "no-alternative" lingo that will hurt us as a nation in the long-term - proof: look who was happy that 5 of his proposals were retained (ahem, copy-pasted rather) from his report, and is now sitting on the 3-man "independent" panel who is to submit something very soon. Is this going to increase or decrease the rate of brain-drain from our dear Dodoland?
In any case, as you already said, electoral reform was NEVER a priority for resolving any of our recurrent problem of mediocrity causing unnecessary deaths and wastage of time and money at all levels...
Yeah, he comes up with a toxic report to rape our democracy two years ago and Ramgoolam appoints him on that "independent' panel but not before repackaging the same toxic report as the much-awaited white paper.
Here is SAJ saying that back in 2003 he was dead against that additional powers be granted to the President.
Post a Comment