Saturday, April 11, 2015
19A; Supreme Friendly, Prime friendly or People Friendly?
Sometimes you need to clarify things and need bit of space to think, analyze and then comment or vote against or support on what ever suggestion, concept or something debatable?
We or most say that we live in a democratic world that protects and respects ‘Democracy’. And when you find people say that there is no democracy then the people of the same society, the outside world label or tag such societies or countries in many or any ways or according to the books of rights rules or regulations.
In what ever society, where ‘democracy’ is in function or in action ‘VOTE of people plays an immensely important role.
Vote is something you can claim or acclaim as ‘conditions free’ tool, asset.
You cannot demand anything or force in order to get the votes of the people though you can say ‘what ever you are suggesting or something that you are bringing for the sake of the society , for the sake or for the benefit of the people, or you even if you say it is ‘highly, people friendly or best or better or good for entire country’
'Cleverness' is, if you know or think something is ‘good’ or people friendly ‘convince’ it to people, groups in a way they understand or in a way that you can get votes supporting.
But when you find the 'cleverness' or 'beliefs' or 'faiths' of people go beyond your, politicians cleverness then you find it difficult or face little problems to get the support of people, or of the group you expect support.
i always like when i find 'no political needs', expectations of any political groups in what ever you create
You find various set of people in any of the societies you live. Some think and then analyze, some categorize and apply what ever they hear in to any or many existing segments divisions or groups they know and then ‘release their opinion or share their views with others.
There are some that do not hold any personal views but views of the majority or of the small groups, or of few, one or two people and follow what they say. Some have their independent views
Some often question whether LAW protects people or the PEOPLE protect law?
When 'the law' finds that people do not protect, respect and going against it then the law punishes people. But when people find the law does not protect people’s rights, it doesn't represent 'people' then they or some or most people, experts say ‘the rules or the LAW of a country or a society should change.
i believe it is because 'many believe that 'executive presidency should change' you have come up with the 19A solution (?)
it should clearly clarify or justify the 'main objective of the constitutional changing' and finally the total or whole benefit should reach the people of this country.
We do not live in the era of cages now, the living strategies should change according to the era or political, social, economical, cultural needs of the society, people of the society or of the world we live.
what ever sentence should change considering the past experiences , and how , when in what occasions, we used the maximum use of 'decision making power' specially because no country is an isolated package when it comes to 'world politics' and world peace and security, more than economic or otherwise
therefore when allocating the decision making power' should be done wisely
What ever introducing or innovating should benefit not a single person, not one particular group, not one particular race or the Ethnic group, colour, religious group, but the entire society as a whole
If it is a creation or an innovation that shows the abilities of the supreme, knowledgeable or if that is something that shows the ‘power of the law and if the benefit of it doesn't reach the 'people' at the end or only some benefit from what ever change then there is an issue.
Do not mis read me I am not criticizing or analyzing the 19A in particular but I am saying and sharing my views on general things, what ever changes occur in any of a society and how such affects people, according to my personal knowledge. yet, I may try to apply what ever I am saying here to its core idea.
If what ever suggestion of any state or a government should not benefit only the ‘political title holders’ in such an environment you find less space or no space for the big term ‘people’.
if the content of the document describes or verifies, analyzes only certain roles of political positions but if it doesnt clarify or justify how it would benefit the people of the country, finally, then i guess something is lacking
i do not know whether it is possible to frame it in a way that 'no government official ( niladari) gets unnecessary power or that raises 'or supports niladarivadaya or no politician gets superior power within the titles they hold but 'people' instead
Yes, it is true on the other hand you can say ‘the political titles, positions are the representatives of people’. But people often question their representations, one cannot forget such things.
If decision making power only circulates around ‘one title, one position’ – political or otherwise, people may question like the the way they questioned ‘executive power’ of the presidency?’
Decision making power should be shared among other titles appropriately, relevantly and no title should become ‘executive’ or dominate other power holding positions
i do not know what word is suitable to describe the '19A' in their series of efforts to try to abolish(?) or adjust(?) the executive presidency.
It is no point using the term ‘abolishing or reducing , or else adjusting the title or the position of the ‘Executive Presidency’, if the same set, already existed moving on to another position or in to the hands of another title holder / person/ individual like 'prime minister'
Then it is not the executive face cut, frame of the title, decision making power that describes in the tile that you are trying to change or abolish or adjust, it is just you are handing over the same to another person.
According to my personal view ‘no position or title should remain in the society or represent the society, or stand before outside world as an 'inactive person' that holds no power or appear as puppetry title holder but as a person with some dignified, clarified decision making ability with power and accuracy
I do not basically like to use the word ‘power’ because this sometimes adds unnecessary face value to the titles they holds or it exaggerates the titles they holds, attitude , extra ordinary face cut to the positions they hold
The terms like power distend people from politicians
And i guess politicians should remember that it is for them that people voted not their family members. do not think that they can do what ever they want using the power of given titles. And do not try to disturb the lives of the people by using the allocated power. Educate your family with regard to this.
You can do what ever useful relevant changes respecting or protecting ‘some sort of hierarchical or beaurocracy frame work that helps to maintain ‘ less conflicts’ or less constraints within admin system- state as an independent unit.
According to what I read the prime minister is assigned with more power.
I do not know whether it is possible use some criteria when slecting suitable positions or ministers of any ministry
· Knowledge of the person with regard to the subject they are handling
( for instance if you are going to name the chief of the Ministry of ‘Education’ there are things that you need to consider)
if you are allocating the chief position of the Courts and justice to a person who has a degree in business management , then when it comes to taking relevant or essential decisions ‘ the person perhaps face problems due to lack of knowledge on the subject.
Common sense not always beneficial or helps, saves or safe guards the ministries. finally 'people should receive the service, fully.
· Previous Experiences in the Political arena
· Abilities of the person, previous record of the person in handling given tasks or the previous achievements, results with regard to decision making power’.
percentages of success or failuers
· How the person represents before outside world
· Flexibility as well as transparency
· Ability to stay at one place for a longer period , if any person changes their places ( Party for instance) from time to time then the others face issues in concentrating’ or continuing ‘allocated or assigned tasks or work, duties. ( perhaps , this should come under visions or mission or in to the list of the rules or regulations of the Party, constitution )
I guess this is not all, if you get the views of people, experts, they might share their views
We should not forget ‘WEST ‘do not do what EAST want. Can you tell me any examples supporting that?
I am not talking about similarities, differences , how we should support each other , how we benefit from each other. I am trying to insist that it is important to maintain the ‘liberty’ within an any inner admin system with no outside interferences.
Therefore ‘Leader’ has a vital role to play.
We are an independent unit yet we respect ‘sharing’, ‘supporting’ helps to maintain ‘peace and harmony of the region’, globe etc.
No constitution should control the lives of the people yet support or help ‘people in their day to day living; political or apolitical, economical or cultural, social
If some oppose, important to know ‘WHY’?
Similarly if some support should say why, they should justify their ‘vote’ who benefit from it etc.?
If the opposing Parties hints or say, give reasons to justify their answer, the state can think of adjusting or repairing it the way that you get vote ‘most’ to implement it.
debates are alwaysuseful. but debating is n0t screaming at each other or discussing things in a wild way.
People do not want to watch drama they want some firm decisions yet strong that discuss their needs and wants.
All I know is ‘it is not possible to challenge or threaten ‘the right of the vote’
you should get their vote in a 'conditions free' way
Considering the history of the country, constraints faced political or social or economical, what ever change take place should ‘ secure the boundaries of the country’ and that is highly essential and no way that it should get less demand , what ever change or constitution you create ‘ it should secure the boundaries of the country’, like mentioned as well as, most importantly it should safe guard ethics values, economy, religions, cultures of the country.
Clear, no confusing environment (political, social or economical), better admin system provides people a chance to ‘live peacefully’
Every top authority should be allocated or assigned with some tasks because their salaries are paid by the people of the country.