Vrye keuse verg veelheid
Die vryheid van keuse van demokrasie is onlosmaaklik deel van ‘n verskeidenheid van keuses. Die een kan nie sonder die ander bestaan.
In Namibië is een van die vrae of dié “veelheid” te groot is en daarom inspraak en die krag van teenwigte deur fragmentering laat verkrummel.
Dr. Panduleni Itula se eis aan alle opposisiepartye se presidensiële kandidate om uit die stryd te tree vir ‘n tweegeveg tussen hom en dr. Hage Geingob van Swapo maak dalk vir sommige sin, maar misken die basiese demokratiese beginsels hierbo. Kandidate wat uit vrye wil opsy wil staan, het natuurlik die reg om dit te doen, maar van hul partylede sal dalk krities oor so ‘n besluit wees.
Die verwagting dat Itula tweede in die presidensiële wedloop sal eindig, is waarskynlik, maar nie ‘n uitgemaakte saak nie. ‘n Gesprekspunt is of hersiende en hoër vereistes vir die registrasie van presidensiële kandidate en dalk selfs politieke partye gestel moet word.
Ook of dit wetlik moontlik moet wees vir ‘n ingeskrewe partylid om as onafhanklike kandidaat te staan in enige verkiesing? Partylidmaatskap is in sekere opsigte direk in stryd met “onafhanklikheid”.
Swapo het reeds gesê hy oorweeg om die skuiwergat deur wysigings van sy partygrondwet toe te stop.
Op die glyskaal tussen die bewese beperkinge van ‘n tweepartystelsel en die ontmagtiging van uitermate fragmentering benodig Namibië antwoorde om groter lewenskrag aan sy demokrasie te gee.
So sê ander
9 November 2019
Trump’s avid obstructionism puts him squarely within the precedents for impeachment
Last week, as the House impeachment inquiry painted an increasingly ugly portrait of President Trump’s campaign to force a foreign government to advance his political interests, he and his lieutenants responded with their signature approach to such investigations as well as a key justification for them: obstruction.
Half of Mueller’s report documents Trump’s campaign to thwart his investigation, examining 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice and finding persuasive evidence that at least four rose to the level of federal crimes.
The administration’s response to Mueller’s conclusions was, of course, more obstruction.
While Trump and his defenders have dismissed obstruction as a mere “process crime,” the history of impeachment is replete with the charge.
Obstruction is potentially a crime not only in the conventional sense but also in the constitutional sense of “high crimes,” defined by Hamilton as arising “from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” It’s a transgression that the president has unique power to commit and a special responsibility to avoid.
• SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
In Namibië is een van die vrae of dié “veelheid” te groot is en daarom inspraak en die krag van teenwigte deur fragmentering laat verkrummel.
Dr. Panduleni Itula se eis aan alle opposisiepartye se presidensiële kandidate om uit die stryd te tree vir ‘n tweegeveg tussen hom en dr. Hage Geingob van Swapo maak dalk vir sommige sin, maar misken die basiese demokratiese beginsels hierbo. Kandidate wat uit vrye wil opsy wil staan, het natuurlik die reg om dit te doen, maar van hul partylede sal dalk krities oor so ‘n besluit wees.
Die verwagting dat Itula tweede in die presidensiële wedloop sal eindig, is waarskynlik, maar nie ‘n uitgemaakte saak nie. ‘n Gesprekspunt is of hersiende en hoër vereistes vir die registrasie van presidensiële kandidate en dalk selfs politieke partye gestel moet word.
Ook of dit wetlik moontlik moet wees vir ‘n ingeskrewe partylid om as onafhanklike kandidaat te staan in enige verkiesing? Partylidmaatskap is in sekere opsigte direk in stryd met “onafhanklikheid”.
Swapo het reeds gesê hy oorweeg om die skuiwergat deur wysigings van sy partygrondwet toe te stop.
Op die glyskaal tussen die bewese beperkinge van ‘n tweepartystelsel en die ontmagtiging van uitermate fragmentering benodig Namibië antwoorde om groter lewenskrag aan sy demokrasie te gee.
So sê ander
9 November 2019
Trump’s avid obstructionism puts him squarely within the precedents for impeachment
Last week, as the House impeachment inquiry painted an increasingly ugly portrait of President Trump’s campaign to force a foreign government to advance his political interests, he and his lieutenants responded with their signature approach to such investigations as well as a key justification for them: obstruction.
Half of Mueller’s report documents Trump’s campaign to thwart his investigation, examining 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice and finding persuasive evidence that at least four rose to the level of federal crimes.
The administration’s response to Mueller’s conclusions was, of course, more obstruction.
While Trump and his defenders have dismissed obstruction as a mere “process crime,” the history of impeachment is replete with the charge.
Obstruction is potentially a crime not only in the conventional sense but also in the constitutional sense of “high crimes,” defined by Hamilton as arising “from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” It’s a transgression that the president has unique power to commit and a special responsibility to avoid.
• SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
Kommentaar
Republikein
Geen kommentaar is op hierdie artikel gelaat nie