"Will of the people" is a very common term these days. Everything that the SPA is doing is supposedly according to the people's wishes. In fact the SPA is so enamored with acting as per the "aspirations of the people" that they are ignoring the long term impact of their actions.
A strong democratic system has to have three well grounded pillars—the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. As the final interpreter of the constitution, the judiciary is perhaps the most important part of any democratic system. It is vitally important that this important arm is independent and is run by highly competent judges.
Another concept in democracy is the separation of powers. The three branches of government cannot be mashed together in the name of national consensus or "people's aspirations." The concept of separation of powers is an important check and balance against any branch becoming too radical and abusing its authorities.
The SPA apparently has a myopic view about the fundamental tenets of democracy. By mandating the judges take their oaths in the parliament, they are not only blatantly disregarding democratic principles, but also giving an impression of "be all, do all."
What kind of precedent does these kinds of hasty decisions set? Have the SPA parliamentarians thought about the long-term? Or are they so busy fulfilling people's aspirations that they don't have time to reflect on their past mistakes and work towards not repeating them in the future?
And this whole idea of people's will seems to be more and more of a rhetoric than a clear mandate. Who knows for sure what the people want? I have said it before—in a democratic system, the voice of the people is heard through the ballots. These SPA members elected nine years ago hardly represent the people. And to be taking such radical steps in the name of people's wishes is sheer lunacy.
But again, it is right for us to expect good things from the same people who have failed us in the past? Leaders have to earn trust which is their mandate to work for the people. But if they work to make themselves supreme, where do the people stand?
3 comments:
The HoR has decided to ammend the provision to require the judges to take their oaths in the parliament. That is good. At least they listened to voices of reason.
But they should not have had this idiotic provision in the first place. Incidences like these only make them look shortsighted and incompetent!
They made a provision only when the Judges categorically refused to take oath under them.
Hi,
No new posts from you for long...keep writing...
Post a Comment