In an unphantomable exercise of democracy (unphantomable because DEMOCRACY does not happen in romania very often), last night an un-elected parliament (un-elected because when we vote for parliament we vote only for the political parties who can put any person in parliament) voted to suspend an elected president (for whom i voted btw). While I feel that it is good to have this as a display of democracy, i can't help to feel the injustice of it all. I feel neglected as a voter. It does not help that one of the members of parliament said and i quote "Mr. [enter president's name] has been threatening us with the electorate. Are you afraid of the electorate? What is the electorate?" [stupid f*k] So yeah...
I have finished reading "cat's cradle" and loved it all the way. What i loved most, besides it being exhilaratingly funny and TRUE, is the following idea: the people of San Lorenzo (island country in the middle of the Pacific) are very poor, their life expectancy being around 35 years. However, they are very very happy. Why? Because of a very important pact that their leaders (the political and the religious one) have done: you see, the political leader threw the religious leader and the religion he was preaching in disgrace, and any follower found practicing that religion is bound to suffer a gruesome death. The thing is, everybody (including the political leader) is a follower, and the religious leader is never ever caught, even though search parties are supposedly going out for him. So you see, the people are poor, and hungry, and full of diseases, but they are happy, because their lives are filled with excitement, because they feel that whatever it is they are doing is important (by the fact that it's illegal even though it's noble). There's more to it than what i just said, but i am not very good at reviews or story-telling for that matter. I put some quotes below.
"She hated people who talked too much. At that moment, she struck me as an appropriate representative for almost all mankind."
"This here is a re-search laboratory. Re-search means look again, don't it? Means that they're looking for something they found once and it got away somehow, and now they got to re-search for it?" (now THIS is personal)
"Hazel's obsession with hoosiers around the world was a textbook example of a false karass, of a seeming team that was meaningless in terms of the ways God gets things done, a textbook example of what Bokonon calls a granfalloon. Other examples of granfalloons are the Communist party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company [...] and any other nation, anytime, anywhere."
"The hand that stocks the drug stores rules the world. Let us start our Republic with a chain of drug stores, a chain of grocery stores, a chain of gas chambers, and a national game. After that, we can write our Constitution."
"I do no say that children at war do not die like men, if they have to die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame, they do die like men, thus making possible the manly jubilation of patriotic holidays."
"If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the ground some of the blue-white poison that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of myself."
7 comments:
This is not a display of democracy, it's a display of power (from the parliament). They show that they can get rid of the president, and for what? No kidding...
I don't agree with vic astro. The fault is not in the system, it is in the people who don't understand yet that extreme measures are for extreme situations... All they got right now is this bad image of political instability for Romania.
Hm, this is the book for bookaholics, right?
Hmm ... sorry for the late response, we are on different time zones, you know. So yes, this is the book for bookaholics. i also read "man without a country", it's extraordinary!
Why isn't romania prepared for the uninominal vote? Could it be that we cannot realize/use the power of our vote? or we just don't care? are we happy to say that it's somebody else's fault instead of our own?
As for the parliament's right to suspend the president, i think it's only normal in a republic, don't you? The problem here is not whether they should be given the right to suspend the president or not, but that they should not abuse that right (as it is the case now). In a parliament where at least the majority is true and honest (i know, i am so naive), this wouldn't happen, right?
And furthermore, if they do abuse that right, there should be a way in which they are punished (as in not voting them the next election)... And i should feel that i can punish the m*er f*ers, not feel helpless and frustrated. And this happens now, when (at least from the outside) things were settling down ... ROaR!
Anyhow, there's going to be a referendum, so I'm going Malaysia to vote!! (there's no embassy in singapore, only in kuala lumpur)
My question is now: if the referendum turns out in favor of the president, will the parliament be thrown out?
I guess that the president (if he gets re-elected) will dissolve the parliament.
The funny thing is that the dispute between the president and pm was contained until now. The question is: what changed? Is it maybe the money we get from EU? Is this all about money?
Furthermore, I could not miss one of today's titles in press about Romania trying to get the soldiers out of Irak, with the new defense ministry. What does that mean? Is the PM trying to get rid of the USA support?
If the referendum vote is in favor of the president, the suspension is canceled and everything stays the same (Prime minister, parliament). All is good, in theory. In practice, in my humble opinion, this will turn into a witch hunt (as Marian pointed bluntly pointed out) soon enough. The president and his supporters will face a 75% in the parliament, as the suspension vote shown us.
About the uninominal vote system: People running independently for the parliament will also campaign independently. Now take person A, 50+, impressive academic records, active member of his community, aware of people's needs and with a mission to make life better for them; also, take person B, 30-50, businessman, involved with 'powerful' people, questionable morality. It is no mistery who should belong in the parliament and who should not. But 'the many' do vote the person who 'impressed' them the most in the campaign, not the better suited for the job. They mostly vote _against_ someone, than _for_ some one. In what scenario person A would afford a better campaign compared with person B? My point is that an uninominal vote system now would be a big mistake. It will open parliament's doors to the wrong people altogether.
Yes, but the problem here is not who gets to be MP (whether he/she deserves it or not), but who is responsible for putting that person in the parliament in the first place.
I would rather it is us (the people, that is), than a party. In this way, WE are responsible for putting a person in the parliament, and that person is responsible to us, not to their given party. If he/she f*cks up, then next time they won't be elected. If they are elected though, then there's nobody else to blame but ourselves.
The same flaw you mentioned can also be found in the current situation: the parties in general put as MPs their most influent people, and in general that influence monetary ...
Vic - person B may win the vote THIS time, but next elections, if person A shows a video of B sleeping at job, MAYBE, people will note vote B.
Whereas, now all B has to do is move to the right party (how many of them changed parties?), and it will be forever in a position of power.
I believe that, having uninominal vote, things could get better in the future. It is a step forward.
Like Claudia said :))
Post a Comment