The burden of choice by default
In all fairness we must thank our collective wisdom for bringing us to
accept the outcome of the polls. Since 1968 our people have been mature enough
to give our full support to the verdict of the polling stations: either keeping
the previous leader and his team or seeking a new one to steer the country in
some other direction, but we all accepted the outcome.
Our consent however deserves to be re-examined periodically: the present
circumstances where our country is now being driven by someone who was not
voted for his present post. This poses the question of his legitimacy. Did our
three crosses of December 2014 consent to this new direction? What about the
opposition - for the worse or better, our system designates them by default,
i.e., a pis-aller imposed in the form of the second-best electoral candidates
failing to garner the majority of votes. In a democracy, it's our collective
consent that gives legitimacy to the action of representatives. Should it not
also apply to those who are entrusted to the job of counterbalancing the
government in the legislative assembly?
Else, the by-default opposition will have as only programme an eternal
wait for their turn at the wheel, without any concern for where our country
should be heading...
Comments
Post a Comment
Moris Zindabad! is served by various contributors all allergic to bs and simple-minded binaries. The comment board strictly welcomes on-topic thoughts.