Irregular constitution and irritable Aleu are two faces of same coin
By: Daniel Abushery Daniel; USA Quote: “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” By: Louis D. Brandeis JUNE 29/2011, SSN; Some political analysts argue that a divided government is partially responsible for the failure of the government to solve some important problems. The term gridlock has been used to suggest this policy stalemate. For example, the president presents a program and the legislative does not accept it. Or legislative passes a bill and the president vetoes it. The result can be a lot of squabbling and little action. In the real sense of the word, the united government does not always eliminate gridlock. However, in a real democratic system, many major laws are passed during a period of divided government as in the period of a united government. Many people in our today's society are frustrated by our system fragmentation, and by gridlock which unveils the inability of our elected officials to agree about how to solve our nation problems. These differences can be exacerbated when different parties control the house of legislation. A divided government makes it more likely that the president and the congressional leaders will advocate different policies and priorities. It also makes it easier for elected officials to play the “blame game” thereby avoiding taking responsibility for failed policies and inaction. We even have a bigger problem when the legislative branch and the executive are controlled by the same party. The president and the members of the house often have different interests, because they are elected by different constituencies, and they can use the system checks and balances to thwart each other’s efforts. “Nobody knows the straightness of his/her neck”. The exception to that rule is the chairman of security committee in SSLA, the bonehead Mr. Aleu Ayang Aleu, who lost his temper recently during an intellectual constitutional debate. By so doing, Mr. Aleu must have wrongly thought that his negative approach and bizarre behavior can intimidate and shut the mouths of the vast majority of the South Sudanese public opinion!! In contrast, the British head of the government, called prime minister, seems to be a better leader and more accountable to the public. Like most democratic nations, Britain has a parliamentary government that is, a system in which the executive is chosen by the legislature. The British government is marked by a unity of authority. Although this is an attractive picture in some respects, while more effective leadership in government is appealing, greater centralization can mean less opportunity to accommodate diverse local interests in our communities. South Sudan is more diverse society than Britain, perhaps making centralization less workable. Back to my previous point about the recognition of South Sudan nation in international laws, though the stability is not a requirement in accordance with the generally accepted definition of a State, as a prerequisite for statehood, stability “has an obvious rationale’. Nevertheless, an objective assessment of factors may help. For example: (1) Peaceful and orderly transfer of power from the mother country “peaceful divorce”. (2) Absence of external threats. (3) Popular support evidenced by a free vote, and (4) Adoption of an adequate and well articulated constitution. Considering whether parliamentary forms would improve the workings of our government requires us to weigh some difficult trade-off. But really the question that we should ask ourselves is: Do we want to pay the costs of frequent gridlock and inefficiency to keep a system that is more responsive to diverse local and other interests? In conclusion, in the view of the United States, diplomatic recognition of any State is a privilege and not a right. Moreover, the United States considers that diplomatic recognition is an instrument of national policy which both its right and its duty to use in the enlightened self-interest of the nation. Therefore, President Kiir unpopular constitution is not, and will not be accepted by Southern Sudanese people unless on their dead bodies. We need decentralization based on residency, despite your region, origin, and ethnicity. Secular constitution in the Republic of South Sudan (ROSS) is a popular demand of 21st century, when we celebrate our independence on July 09th 2011. The author can be reached at [email protected], or [email protected]. COMMENTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent those of the website. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD info" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
