Tweet
The good ones are only as vulnerable as the old lot if the old lot are still around or if the new ones are really the old ones in sheep's clothing.
Remember in the US which uses the almost the same kind of electoral system (first-past-the-post with 2 very dominant parties) the Democratic Party with Barack Obama today (and Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt in the past) was the the Democratic Party which was the bedrock of the slave-holding, racist Confederacy only 5 generations before.
Likewise the Republican Party that "boasts" Richard Nixon and George W. Bush in recent times is the Republican Party which really boasted Lincoln and Eisenhower in the past.
So the new ones are not necessarily as vulnerable as the old ones.
Besides if they were, why would changing the system even work? Why wouldn't the new ones just be as corrupt as the old ones and just ignore the constitution (and any changes you might propose) as it suits them? Notice how they all ignored the plain-as-day clauses preventing foreign citizenship? And only when either figured they could gain from resorting to the actual clause that it was invoked?</SPAN></SPAN>
The U.S electoral system has in place checks and balances that deal with abuses of power, it also has in place safe gaurds that deal with conflict of interest isssues specifically as it relates to the Head of Government the President and his leave of past offices, i.e Senate, Gov or any governmental seat.
To answer your question which you already answered why would it work, they could ignore the constitution and use it only to their gain, well that’s the point.e.g If Bruce as the P.M used his office to show favor to his constituents and it was written in our Law that such an act is an act of Treason, punishable by death or impeachment, mandated by a nation wide vote, do you think he would think twice about handing over Dudus?
I mean our constitution must have teeth, and if both parties know they have laws to keep them in check, which they can use against each other for political gain for the benefit of the people in place, chuss mi it will be used.
The idea that people are vassel to a system is only true if the people believe so themselves. In that case, no new system imposed on them or given to them will change that as they will still have the vassel mentality. There is no possible way that the majority can truly be vassel to any system if they don't want to be and this has been proven time and time again in places as far away as South Africa and Eastern Europe.
Besides, why is it that the same system and nearly identical constitution doesn't make the people of Barbados or Canada into vassels? It can't be because of colour (Bimsters are black, Canadians are white), climate (snowy Canada, sunny Barbados) or history (Canada a settler colony and Bim a slave colony). It might be because of education (Canada and Bim take education seriously, out here we don't and our parties play around with it as part of election gimmicks).
Ultimately what you are proposing may well follow the route of other legislation out here - good on paper but never enforced. If you have a corrupt bunch of politicians, why on earth would they actually follow the rules that could result in their expulsion, imprisonment or death? It would be like that American phrase of "turkey's not voting for Christmas/Thanksgiving". Ultimately you need a willing bunch of people who will enforce the rules against rule-breakers. No matter how strict the rules, without good people to oversee their enforcement then those rules will be toothless and useless.
The P.M electoral process in Canada, they don’t have to be an M.P to be P.M! Barbados probably has more men/women of good will and as I said in my 1st response the USA does have a system of checks and balances with obvious political and judicial consequences CC: Nixon and Clinton.
To your question why the same system almost identical isn’t getting the same results in Jamaica, again you have answered it , its almost identical and that can be the difference in skin colour , or medical health , that one gene is the difference , in our case a multiple of genes are lacking , no many good men/women to lead change , a constitution that’s has abuse written all over it , MPs with conflict of interest and MPs who don’t reside in their district or who have never lived there.
I could go back further and list a history of a small Island that got drawn into a cold war conflict because it wanted to chart its own history and the devastation it had on our constitution. Our leaders disregarded it for political gain, planting seeds of gunmen/garrisons that mushroomed to the status of Dons. Barbados and Canada were on the right side of the fence in those eras!
It should be noted that all those systems of constitution are different and cater to their nations needs, or strengths and weaknesses. Jamaica needs to do the same not copycat everything from the US /U.K/Canadian system.
Jamaicas problems are corruption, twisted in a net of political and narco terrorism, all bearing fruits from an earlier era of the cold war, how should our constitution deal with that?Our constitution comes from a time of colonial rule , we live in a narco/religous terrorist world and we dont have the Queen to govern us , how do we governourselves? Hoping and parying for good people to do the right thing is more spiritual than anything else, If thats the satge we are at as a nation, we are pass being in trouble , we are trouble unto ourselves.
Well the constitution shouldn'thaveto spell out every last detail. Most don't. I don't even think the US constitution mandates that Representatives live in the districts they represent (in fact I'm 99.9% sure there is no such stipulation in the US constitution). It only mandates that they be of a certain age, be citizens and live in their state (but NOT necessarily in their district). That our constitution apparently is in need of spelling out what should be a commonsense approach is indicative of our regression as a nation in terms of political maturity. If ever a case could be made that Jamaica should be taken under UN Trusteeship (probably by Canada and the UK) then this must be it - we can't even do the simple things anymore.
Well my friend I would rather we spell it out put it in writing, mandate it, than reach that stage of UN Truteship or forgein invasion. It seems to me it’s a plausible solution. Put it in writing.
To me it’s the constitution that’s the problem, a nation with weak laws governs no one.
They say it is the supreme Law of the land.The constitution.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
Remember in the US which uses the almost the same kind of electoral system (first-past-the-post with 2 very dominant parties) the Democratic Party with Barack Obama today (and Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt in the past) was the the Democratic Party which was the bedrock of the slave-holding, racist Confederacy only 5 generations before.
Likewise the Republican Party that "boasts" Richard Nixon and George W. Bush in recent times is the Republican Party which really boasted Lincoln and Eisenhower in the past.
So the new ones are not necessarily as vulnerable as the old ones.
Besides if they were, why would changing the system even work? Why wouldn't the new ones just be as corrupt as the old ones and just ignore the constitution (and any changes you might propose) as it suits them? Notice how they all ignored the plain-as-day clauses preventing foreign citizenship? And only when either figured they could gain from resorting to the actual clause that it was invoked?</SPAN></SPAN>
The U.S electoral system has in place checks and balances that deal with abuses of power, it also has in place safe gaurds that deal with conflict of interest isssues specifically as it relates to the Head of Government the President and his leave of past offices, i.e Senate, Gov or any governmental seat.
To answer your question which you already answered why would it work, they could ignore the constitution and use it only to their gain, well that’s the point.e.g If Bruce as the P.M used his office to show favor to his constituents and it was written in our Law that such an act is an act of Treason, punishable by death or impeachment, mandated by a nation wide vote, do you think he would think twice about handing over Dudus?
I mean our constitution must have teeth, and if both parties know they have laws to keep them in check, which they can use against each other for political gain for the benefit of the people in place, chuss mi it will be used.
The idea that people are vassel to a system is only true if the people believe so themselves. In that case, no new system imposed on them or given to them will change that as they will still have the vassel mentality. There is no possible way that the majority can truly be vassel to any system if they don't want to be and this has been proven time and time again in places as far away as South Africa and Eastern Europe.
Besides, why is it that the same system and nearly identical constitution doesn't make the people of Barbados or Canada into vassels? It can't be because of colour (Bimsters are black, Canadians are white), climate (snowy Canada, sunny Barbados) or history (Canada a settler colony and Bim a slave colony). It might be because of education (Canada and Bim take education seriously, out here we don't and our parties play around with it as part of election gimmicks).
Ultimately what you are proposing may well follow the route of other legislation out here - good on paper but never enforced. If you have a corrupt bunch of politicians, why on earth would they actually follow the rules that could result in their expulsion, imprisonment or death? It would be like that American phrase of "turkey's not voting for Christmas/Thanksgiving". Ultimately you need a willing bunch of people who will enforce the rules against rule-breakers. No matter how strict the rules, without good people to oversee their enforcement then those rules will be toothless and useless.
The P.M electoral process in Canada, they don’t have to be an M.P to be P.M! Barbados probably has more men/women of good will and as I said in my 1st response the USA does have a system of checks and balances with obvious political and judicial consequences CC: Nixon and Clinton.
To your question why the same system almost identical isn’t getting the same results in Jamaica, again you have answered it , its almost identical and that can be the difference in skin colour , or medical health , that one gene is the difference , in our case a multiple of genes are lacking , no many good men/women to lead change , a constitution that’s has abuse written all over it , MPs with conflict of interest and MPs who don’t reside in their district or who have never lived there.
I could go back further and list a history of a small Island that got drawn into a cold war conflict because it wanted to chart its own history and the devastation it had on our constitution. Our leaders disregarded it for political gain, planting seeds of gunmen/garrisons that mushroomed to the status of Dons. Barbados and Canada were on the right side of the fence in those eras!
It should be noted that all those systems of constitution are different and cater to their nations needs, or strengths and weaknesses. Jamaica needs to do the same not copycat everything from the US /U.K/Canadian system.
Jamaicas problems are corruption, twisted in a net of political and narco terrorism, all bearing fruits from an earlier era of the cold war, how should our constitution deal with that?Our constitution comes from a time of colonial rule , we live in a narco/religous terrorist world and we dont have the Queen to govern us , how do we governourselves? Hoping and parying for good people to do the right thing is more spiritual than anything else, If thats the satge we are at as a nation, we are pass being in trouble , we are trouble unto ourselves.
Well the constitution shouldn'thaveto spell out every last detail. Most don't. I don't even think the US constitution mandates that Representatives live in the districts they represent (in fact I'm 99.9% sure there is no such stipulation in the US constitution). It only mandates that they be of a certain age, be citizens and live in their state (but NOT necessarily in their district). That our constitution apparently is in need of spelling out what should be a commonsense approach is indicative of our regression as a nation in terms of political maturity. If ever a case could be made that Jamaica should be taken under UN Trusteeship (probably by Canada and the UK) then this must be it - we can't even do the simple things anymore.
Well my friend I would rather we spell it out put it in writing, mandate it, than reach that stage of UN Truteship or forgein invasion. It seems to me it’s a plausible solution. Put it in writing.
To me it’s the constitution that’s the problem, a nation with weak laws governs no one.
They say it is the supreme Law of the land.The constitution.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
Comment