It must be the exception and certainly not become the 'norm' in the removal of a regime or government from power.
Unfortunately, it is becoming too widespread, and with the tacit, if not open and full support of too many governments
But, are such governments then expected to act and govern at the pleasure of the demonstrators and/or civil insurgents who created the opportunity for them to get into power?
Do they govern under the implied, if not expressed threat that, if they do not meet the demands of the demonstrators and/or civil insurgents, now.
Then they, or, indeed, other sections of the citizens, will again take to the streets and attempt to bring them down?
What security of tenureship can a government coming to power under this kind of power transfer, govern?
As opposed to the more orthodox popular election system which gives the winning party or parties a fixed period 'mandate' to rule or govern?
If, as is really the case, the ruling elites can falsely claim to be acting in the best interests of the people and the nation, then so can be sections of the masses.
Even if they happen to be more numerous than the ruling elites. Both are quite capable and do dishonestly seek to use the 'interests of the people' to legitimise their actions.
And both should be scrutinised and made accountable for the legal and moral basis of their action.
No comments:
Post a Comment