Any opposition is by definition and always the incarnation of some form of popular will and thus a moral force as well. As such, Mrs. Messaoud, Daddah, Mouloud, Sarr etc., among other political leaders of the opposition, have a critical responsibility, almost a debt owed to their electorate.
popular base, it can never be stressed enough, also the opinions of lamppost near half the people in some small percentages near as is appropriate in any democracy healthy and viable. Far be it from me to lay the foundations of some pretentious "manual of the perfect opponent", but some developed or warnings would be needed to require the exercise of the opposition of the fullness of its rights and duties the positive constructive conflict. Constructive and positive contradiction that could have significant scope in the context of a resolutely opposed entering the length and consistency in fundamentals. The famous inclusive dialogue should not be a pretext for contrasting pairs of uniform "Majority-opposition." Indeed, the opposition has repeatedly called for even require opening the presidential majority and according to inclusive dialogue under a clause of the Dakar Agreement. Clause normally become unacceptable, passed the resolution of the crisis. This requirement would, in my view, smacks of an outright call to monolithic political rule for the sharing can not be over any more cake. . It would be the really wondering at this point whether there would still be room for men and credible opposition structures in our young democracy prematurely threatened by the deadly boredom monotony grader?
And that simply by the lack of automatic recurring almost Pavlovian redeployment around and always in favor of the masters of the country at the time. Let it be said to hold good, the opposition is not an empty word and parties opposition are not just political fodder and bradable bazard at will. Therefore, the opposition must oppose and the majority must govern and bien.Sans advocate for the establishment of impassable barriers such as "fortified Maginot Line politics" It would seem that the future of democracy imply plural makes a clear differentiation between the camp of the ruling majority and that of minority in opposition. But that does not mean the establishment of a sort of political drawbridge that opens and closes at the option of advanced or regressions dialogue "majority-opposition." logic.
That said, although it should be called political leaders of the opposition do to oppose that idea could not be reduced to sulking and occasional quarrels or cyclical.'s Role or rather the art of opposition is a vocation or even a full time occupation that requires single-minded, a good amount of consistency and above all consistency. It is real pluralistic democracy without opposition persevering, constant and feisty even in adversity. In this case, it would permit any blame Ould Daddah and his "party" unless the inconstancy and lack of fidelity in the fundamentals, thankfully the rest. Indeed , failing to really err on the ideas, Mr Daddah would like ideas ... still, this probably explains it. But another thing that really springs that would move Daddah and his "RFD" since it seems he would have one, by itself, it has always remained faithful and devoted despite the weather and political turbulence of all kinds. A life, death. Normal.
But curiously and all the elephants of Tayie prove to be the most stubborn, determined and very quick. Their insistence to become embedded in the new majority invariably comes as obsessive leitmotif in the surf a sea of regular disgorging stirred all sorts of unspeakable waste. This breed bleached in harness of extortion would be primarily concerned to draw the chestnuts out of fire at all times under the guise of the requirement of political openness. In principle and consistency, it would seem not to care. Hence the typical sluggishness and softness even the alignment of their contradictory discourse of pseudo opponents. This is the case of Adil, Wiam, Tawassoul and many other parties and the nebula partillons opposition etc. ... In fact they behave like so many lead ballast and shipwrecks for democracy. The COD frayed as a result of mimicry of the rush to the green pastures of the presidential majority. The temptations are great.
The opposition must oppose, and the majority must govern in a democracy is the rule. Sarkozy does not make a mistake by sticking strictly speaking to chiefs of the UMP for the formation of his new government Fillon-bis. Exit bluntly excessive openness, Kouchner Borloo, Morin, Amara and co in the final straight of his mandate. As such we can not therefore complain to President Ould Abdel Aziz to rest primarily on his own side to implement its program. In doing so it does not necessarily shut the door dialogue as argued by some opposition to confuse dialogue and automatic conversion.
There would be many ways to interact positively while confining each party on its own land. One does not exclude the other, that is the essence of any constructive exchange. This is the democracy as science progresses in the nearly recovering tirelessly involved. But without active opposition and decided there was no possible contradiction and hence no democratic plurality, one does not go without the other. A political class standard and standardized Loved various rallies and reversals would be trivially the antechamber of the dictatorship who never makes room for diversity. And this is not the goal of democracy.
In conclusion it would be possible to build bridges and links between the ruling majority and the minority in opposition without falling into the temptation of easy and comfortable uniform policy. It would not be in the interest of the majority nor the credibility of the opposition and therefore even less in our plural democracy emerging. So, to avoid reaching the end of the homogeneity bland, tasteless and deadly, it is hoped that those politicians pressed by the weight of years ginned by the hourglass of life password or pass frenzied appetite finally witness to other young, fresh and breath long enough to complete the struggle of a credible opposition really falling over time and consistency in fundamentals , for real. At no person shall be impossible. /. Posted by Khalil
Balla Gueye
0 comments:
Post a Comment