Let’s get back to the first principle, what is this farce all about? It all started because someone said in case there is a freak election, in case the people voted in a new govt and the new govt is made up of crooks whose only interest is to run down the country and spend all the money in the reserves, and run the country to the ground. Are these valid and real reasons? Reasonable, sensible?
When these fears were first mooted, no one raise the any question. Or no one dared to raise any question. Fear was omnipresence then. Now that fear is dead, shall the people take some time to question what all these fears were about?
In the first place, what is a freak election, according to who is an election a freak election? Oh, is it because the people voted a new group of people, a new party to form the govt. Is that freakish? Or is that just a normal process of a democracy when the people so decided to choose another party to form the govt because they have given up hope on the incumbent govt as has been?
There are 2 million people out there, all very well educated. Are the voters stupid, mad or being drugged, or being bribed and so foolish to vote in unison, a new party to form the govt made up of rogues and cheats? And why should the political leaders in the newly elected govt be rogues, thugs, robbers, cheats, out to destroy the country and rob its reserves? Is this a reasonable assumption or a foolish assumption?
Is it right to say that only good, honest, clever and responsible politicians are found in the ruling party and the rest are all bad people? Children, I am speaking to you. Do you understand what I am saying? Have you grown up and know what is right and wrong, what is good for you and what is bad for you, what is reasonable and what is freakish?
Are these assumptions sound and real? Or are they just wild imaginations to frighten the voters, to create irrational fear? All democratic countries went through the electoral processes to elect new govts. This is what a democratic process is all about, a change of govt is the norm.
Is there a need for an Elected President to check on a popularly elected govt? How effective is such an Elected President to check on a ‘rogue’ govt? A one man machine against a parliament of political leaders?
And after creating an Elected President to check on a ‘rogue’ elected govt, now another new fear is raised. What happened if the Elected President to check on a ‘rogue’ govt becomes a ‘rogue’ President? So now we need to devise another funny scheme to double check to make sure the Elected President will not become a ‘rogue’ president?
Do we then need to triple check on whatever rules and regulations and criteria so that these would not become ‘rogue’ system of checks and checks?
What the fish? What is going on? A popularly elected govt to be checked by a single man called Elected President, and now to check on this Elected President that is supposed to check on the elected govt?
Does it make sense? Does it make any sense at all? So far, the only thing that makes sense is what the WP has suggested, there is no need for this Elected President. No need to waste public money and resources, in the hundreds of millions for something that needs to be checked and checked and checked.
What do you think?
The moral of the story…. I need a safe. But the safe is not safe enough. So I buy a bigger safe to put the safe inside. But I don’t trust the bigger safe. So I buy a biggerer safe to put the bigger safe with the smaller safe inside into this biggerer safe. If I don’t feel good about this biggerer safe, I may want to build a fortress around it. And so the story goes.