That the institution of governance of the Maldives is undergoing a considerable metamorphosis at this time is undeniable. That the awareness of the nation's people is ever-increasing is evident. However, should we believe that our awareness has reached the epitome of understanding our choices without question? This question dawned upon me while pondering over the promise of an open referendum to be enacted in order to ascertain Maldivians' choice of governance: whether parliamentary or presidential.
I thought I would try and squeeze a bit of sense out of my dilapidated brain to scrutinize this unprecedented task. As is the norm for me nowadays, I also thought I would let my pondering be read by everyone interested enough – that's you, dear reader, and it's a beck for you to rebuff my rantings.
As per my self-afflicted habit of oversimplifying, the proponents of a governing institution comprises two components: the executive and the legislative. Some might demand the inclusion of the defensive component, but I believe defense is a tool for survival. Does that not make it an important component for comprehensive governance? That question is only partially true given the need for the autonomy of the defensive component in order to ensure that, 1) the executive or the legislative components do not hold sway upon it and 2) to ensure unwavering reaction to all threats against the nation. Command of the defensive component should be retained by non-government personnel while only the control (the check and balance mechanisms) of it should be exercised by the government.
So, my government of choice shall comprise of the following:
the executive component, which is responsible for the daily operations of the government and its governance
the legislative component, which makes the law
You might ask, 'what about policing the people?' To answer that question one has to scrutinize the parties responsible for curbing the crimes of the society. Crimes are a result of weak ethics and morals, thus it is a social factor. Managing social factors should be the responsibility of the respective departments within the executive component. These departments are often referred to as law-enforcement bodies, and are sometimes categorized into specialties and/or levels of responsibilities in order to manage various types/levels of crimes. That law-enforcement bodies often mandate special uniforms is inconsequential (it holds no more significance than the jerseys of the referees of a football match, worn in order to signify their purpose in the game). These bodies should be no more important than customs, planning, human resource development, financial, etc bodies of a nation.
The poignant question at hand is 'do I choose a parliamentary system or a presidential system?' To answer this I will now have to use the above reflections to define the two systems, thus enabling the differentiation between them which will hopefully lead to a coherent choice.
In a parliamentary system, the parliament holds sway over various/all aspects of the empowerments endorsed upon the executive component. You might ask why this is a case for concern if the parliament comprises representatives of the people. The answer to that would be that when the representatives of the people are responsible for the composition of a governing coalition there are two degrees of separation between the executive component and the people. In such a case, the executive component becomes irreproachable by the people.
An additional cause for quandary that a parliamentary system provides is that in most institutions the parliament, or a portion/portions of it, is also responsible for or part of the legislative component. One might wonder that the intermingling of the executive and legislative components will provide for a more efficient government. That possibility can hold true, but no more truer the possibilities of corruption.
Given my unfavourable definition of parliamentary systems, why is there still a debate to promote it? That is because there are ways of implementing such a system with the people's interests in mind. The two prerequisites for a benevolent parliamentary system are, 1) empowering the people for the direct ratification (through elections) of the final coalition which shall comprise the executive component and 2) electing a separate body of representatives of the people which will become the legislative body.
With a presidential system, the executive component and the legislative component is segregated as either body is elected by independent elections. Once certain key offices of the executive body are elected, either these electorates select the coalition members, the parliament/parties nominate coalition members, or the people predetermine the number of representatives each party or the various constituencies represented in the parliament shall contribute to the coalition (through means of confidence/popularity votes).
The issues to be faced with regards to a presidential system are, 1) the executive component and the legislative component will need clear segregation between them especially in the case of smaller countries where constituencies are easily misled and 2) the executive component (and indeed the other two components too) may take advantage of its executive powers if powers beyond law are bestowed.
Now I can finally answer the question of which system would be best suited for my nation (only my reckonings here, mind you). The short answer is, ANY system! The long-winded descriptive conditions upon which that answer titillates on are:
The defensive component of the nation should be an autonomous body under a command uninfluenced either by the executive component (except in enforcing adherence to law) or the legislative component, but held in check by law and prohibited from partaking in civil affairs
Lack of any relationships between the executive component and the legislative component, unless under the direct scrutiny of all the people of the nation
Only one degree of separation between the people and either the executive component or the legislative component
No individual of the nation, whether a part of the executive, legislative or defensive component shall be exempt from the law
4 comments:
And would you like some fries with that?
That was a good post and I learnt much about how a political system works. Now I'll have to actually go read a book and check the factual accuracies.
Let's begin by analysing the present system. We have a Polictical Trinity. The father [of democracy], the [coming] soon [reforms] and the holey ghost [accounting system]. The defence component is out-sourced to various tribes of tuna in the national waters. The marine birds form the air defence. We deter air raids by hurling coconuts at the F16s. Local policing is done by two warring factions, the star force and the "other force".
Personally, I think you had small and short term goals in mind when you discussed the topic. What we need is an Empire. An empire to conquer the world, to make the map of Maldives large enough to be seen without a microscope and to increase the Dhivehi bahu ge thanavas kan. Our thirst for oil and natural resources increase day by day. Our search for the promised land has yet to be fullfilled. We the tuna blooded race shall rise above all nations. We shall prevail.
Sieg heil.
I don't know how this referendum? or plebiscite? is going to be like. Will there only be these two options? Either presidential OR parliamentary? Is it fair to present merely two options? Do we need a democracy at all? I think we need first to go for a referendum to see what form of POLITICAL system we need.
or perhaps we should examine ourselves on a more sublime topic, such as 'how we would like to be ruled.' this way more of us could participate, since we're not all political intellects (my views are certainly not based on any factual political studies as m has mentioned above). once we submit the prerequisites of our governance based within the parameters of our limited understanding, the intellects can get cracking at churning out the end-product.
But shouldn't we ask first if we should be ruled at all? After all, anarchy is a system too.
How about just running the country as a business? With executive bodies and all. No naming names here. :D
Post a Comment