Do leitor Timor2:
It is of my opinion that the most pragmatic leader in Timor Leste is Mari Alkatiri. He had a no nonsense approach to many policies that were adopted by the previous Government, it was also his pragmatic approach that won him no friends in the opposition. If you want pragmatic Politics if I was in FRETILIN I certainly would like to exercise my influence. Given the fact that the removal of Mari from the Prime Ministership and now FRETILIN itself is not what FRETILIN wants it was what other Political Parties, Ramos Horta and the President wanted. In regards to what the people wants it is something that only an election will reveal.
Although it is a strong argument that Mari is not the unifying in the Political landscape of Timor, I believe he never was. What is the unifying factor in the previous Government was essentially FRETILIN. The reason the Party chose Mari was not based on any idealistic perspectives but the competencies he has shown during 25 years working tirelessly for Timor, something many people don’t know. FRETILIN did not look at the fact that Mari was Muslim or the fact the he came from Mozambique, what it wanted in a Prime Minister was not a “symbol” but a pragmatic, no nonsense leader to get things done, to drive policies and able to a negotiator (It is widely acknowledged that he is a very good negotiator, during the struggle and the Oil negotiations).
Xanana on the other is always the idealistic, the charismatic, with a persona of being “loved” by the people and one which can unify the country, a role which is best suited for the Presidency not as a Prime Minister. Wether Xanana has been able to exert his influence positively during the crisis remains an issue which will reveal itself in the future and the upcoming elections. Should FRETILIN win the elections it will be a great shock to the President who in the 22 June speech, demonised FRETILIN to the extent where it will be difficult for him to gain confidence from FRETILIN.
As I continue to reiterate what will be decisive factor is the elections in 2007. I think it is prudent for FRETILIN to continue with its current leadership. It is clear in this crisis that removing Mari as I mentioned earlier is not what FRETILIN wants but what minority within FRETILIN, the Opposition, the President and Ramos Horta.
I think if you know Timorese Politics well, especially that of FRETILIN during the 25 years and now you will know that it is a Political Party that is well disciplined and knowing FRETILIN it will always choose a Prime Minister based on Principle, such is the controversies of the current crisis.
I sometimes look at John Howard and think back to 1980’s, then in 1991 followed by 1994 I would think if wether he ever was going to be Prime Minister, well history has of ten told us that in Politics always expect the unexpected.
.
quinta-feira, julho 13, 2006
A pragmatic leader
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
8 comentários:
Timor2 said: “It is of my opinion that the most pragmatic leader in Timor Leste is Mari Alkatiri.”
If this statement is true, his pragmatism would have enabled him to understand that sacking 40% of the army could never have been in the best interest of the country, both in the area of internal security aswell as external security.
There is no doubt that a decision to sack the 600 peticionares had a sound legal basis since those soldiers had deserted their posts. Their sacking amounted to a disciplinary action.
However PRAGMATISM and a pragmatic person would not have found it difficult to conclude, even then, that because of the percentage of soldiers involved and their geographic background the solution would have to be more considerate of such factors rather than a mere disciplinary action. In fact, pragmatism would have dictated that they could not have all been sacked without expecting trouble in the internal security of the country.
Likewise, pragmatism would also have indicated that, since the main role of the army is to protect the nation against external threats, a severely reduced army would have compromised national security should an external threat arise in the meantime.
In any case the crisis that ensued after that fateful decision to sack all 600 soldiers stands today as sobering reminder that it was a bad decision, not at all pragmatic but rather too legalistic and I dare say hot tempered.
It was perhaps Alkatiri’s trademark reputation as a “strong negotiator” and perhaps arrogance that led him to that grave error of judgement, the results of which we are all aware of. Although that reputation may have served him well in other areas, specifically in the areas of energy resources it has proved to be utterly counter-productive in regards to matters of internal security. I believe that, since that decision sparked the current crisis that led to his own demise as PM, Dr. Alkatiri, with the full benefit of hinsight, has fully realised that that decision was not the most appropriate one.
Timor2 also states that “Although it is a strong argument that Mari is not the unifying in the Political landscape of Timor, I believe he never was. What is the unifying factor in the previous Government was essentially FRETILIN.”
This is the more the reason why I have argued in the past that his return as a possible second time candidate for the Prime Ministership would mark a new wave of political anxiety and possible political instability in the future. Fretilin could continue to be that unifying force, given that it still remains the biggest political party, without further unsettling the political stability of the country by choosing a more suitable candidate for PM in the next elections. In fact, Dr Alkatiri’s unpopularity in the country could be detrimental to Fretilin as opposition parties would exploit that aspect fully to score political points against Fretilin in the next electoral campaigns.
Considering that, Timor2 statement “I think it is prudent for FRETILIN to continue with its current leadership.” Is a direct contradiction to his previouly held belief “that Mari is not the unifying in the Political landscape of Timor, I believe he never was.”
I have argue before and will argue again that political parties are just the means for normal citizens to organise themselves with the objective of better serving the country in the political sphere. As such Fretilin must consider, in all its pragmatism, the best interests of the nation rather than that of the party given that once in power it must form a government for all and not just for its sympatisers.
RaiDobenTimor
Tradução:
Um líder pragmático
Do leitor Timor2:
É minha opinião que o líder mais pragmático de Timor-Leste é Mari Alkatiri. Ele tinha uma abordagem realista em muitas políticas que foram adoptadas pelo Governo anterior, e foi também a sua abordagem pragmática que não lhe conquistou amigos na oposição. Se alguém quer políticas pragmáticas, se eu fosse da FRETILIN certamente que gostaria de exercer a minha influência. Dado o facto que a remoção de Mari do cargo de Primeiro-Ministro e agora da própria FRETILIN não é o que a FRETILIN quer, foi o que outros partidos políticos, Ramos Horta e o Presidente quiseram. Sobre o que o povo quer é algo que somente uma eleição revelará.
Apesar de ser um argumento forte que Mari não é o unificador na paisagem politica de Timor, acredito que ele nunca foi. O que foi o factor unificador no governo anterior foi essencialmente a FRETILIN. A razão porque o Partido escolheu Mari não foi baseada em perspectivas idealistas mas nas competências que tem mostrado durante 25 anos trabalhando sem descanso por Timor, algo que muita gente não conhece. A FRETILIN não olhou ao facto de Mari ser muçulmano ou ao facto de vir de Moçambique, o que queria num Primeiro-Ministro não era um “simbolo” mas um líder pragmático, realista, que resolvesse as coisas, que dirigisse políticas e um negociador capaz (é largamente reconhecido que ele é um muito bom negociador, durante a luta e nas negociações do petróleo).
Xanana por outro lado é sempre o idealista, o carismático, com uma imagem de ser “amado” pelo povo e o que pode unificar o país, um papel mais próprio da Presidência não de um Primeiro-Ministro. Se Xanana foi capaz de exercer a sua influência positivamente durante a crise permanece uma questão que se revelará no futuro e nas próximas eleições. Se a FRETILIN ganhar as eleições será um grande choque para o Presidente que no discurso de 22 de Junho, demonizou a FRETILIN de tal modo que lhe será difícil ganhar a confiança da FRETILIN.
Assim, continuo a reiterar que o que será um factor decisivo serão as eleições em 2007. Penso que é prudente para a FRETILIN continuar com a sua liderança actual. É claro nesta crise que a remoção de Mari como mencionei mais cedo não foi o que a FRETILIN queria mas o que quis uma minoria na FRETILIN, a Oposição, o Presidente e Ramos Horta.
Penso que se conhecer bem os políticos Timorenses, especialmente os da FRETILIN durante os 25 anos e os de agora saberá que é um Partido Politico bem disciplinado, e conhecendo a FRETILIN esta escolherá sempre um Primeiro-Ministro com base em Princípios, tal é o debate da crise actual.
Às vezes olho para John Howard e penso nos anos de 1980, depois em 1991 seguido de 1994 quando pensava se ele seria Primeiro-Ministro, bem a história ensina-nos que em política de deve sempre esperar o inesperado.
In response to Anonymous or RaiDobenTimor at 2:52:48 AM.
The decision to sack the soldiers was not solely Alkatiri's decision. Also, the crisis itself is not to be taken to be caused solely by the sacking of the 600 soldiers. There are many factors that have contributed to this current impasse and, no doubt, other people have destabilised the situation even more.
Also, I don't totally agree with the following statement "that political parties are just the means for normal citizens to organise themselves with the objective of better serving the country in the political sphere."
Political parties are formed to represent the interests of the people who vote for them. FRETILIN must serve the national interest, but also its members. This may mean that it adopts policies that are unacceptable to a minority of people. In that sense, a minority (for eg PSD and PD) may argue that FRETILIN is not governing in the best interests of the country. However, the onus is really on the minority to challenge at the elections and on the campaign trail.
Whether Alkatiri decides to run again for PM is a decision for FRETILIN. Some may argue that he is not a unifying figure or that he is hated, but again these are considerations that FRETILIN will need to take into account.
If Alkatiri is to be proven innocent of the current allegations and if the investigations show that others were responsible for the crisis, and responsible to a much greater extent, then I see no reason why he can't come back as PM. If he is supported by the majority of FRETILIN there is no reason he can't come back. If it is a bad decision by FRETILIN, well that would be reflected in the elections. The main point is that a political party should not allow a minority of people to dictate its policies and its choice of leaders.
Response to Timor2:
I would certainly not mind engaging in a lengthy political debate with you, however I believe this blog is not the proper space or was intended for that purpose.
Suffice to say that political parties must at all times consider the best interests of the nation above everything else including the interests of its own members. Political parties are the avenue through which groups of citizens organise themselves under a particular ideology they believe is the most appropriate do further national interests. There cannot be political parties if there is no nation. This distinction between national and party interests is often seen in other democratic systems when members of parliament will often “cross the floor” and vote against its own party policies to defend the interests of the electorates which is made up not only by those of the same political inclination but also a range of individuals that represent other sections of the electorate. This is a concept which I believe is not very well understood by all, including timorese politicians, as your own answer suggests. There is no doubt that Fretilin (party) should consider the interests of its members but a Fretilin government MUST consider the interests of the whole nation.
These distinct interests and their order of prevalence must be fully understood by all political groups and actors engaged in the political process since the inverse would result in a government that would govern mainly for “their” people to the detriment of other nationals and national stability . This is not what national interests are all about nor is it the aim of a participative democracy. A country with a government like that can never be a stable country as the minorities would always seek to topple the political order that serves only to defend one section of the population. It is worthwhile to point out that in many countries where the political divide is more balanced, those “minorities” can represent just under half of the total population the more important it is for political parties to understand the difference between party interests with that of national interests which must always prevail. Needless to say that the interests of political parties are not always consistent with national interests which is why the constitution safeguards certain aspects of paramount national importance that cannot be decided upon by simple majorities in Parliament or others that cannot be decided by Parliament at all despite the fact that they represent the people. The national flag is one such example.
As for the root cause of the crisis I do agree that there were other factors of oportunism involved. However it is very hard to contend, in the face of evidence, that the sacking of the 600 soldiers was not the trigger for the crisis. It was the decision that, being itself faulty, sparked other events and provided the oportunity for those other factors to play out.
Regarding the responsibility of the PM in that decision, one cannot reasonably dismiss the responsabilities of the PM since he is the ultimate decision maker bearing the ultimate responsibility for the decisions of its government. Arguing otherwise would be tantamount to defending an anarchic government where ministers and other officials rule independently from their hierarchical superiors who bear no responsibility for their subordinate’s actions. This would be an untenable situation and would translate into a government not fit to govern. Even in tant case the PM would always bear the responsibility in the last instance.
As for Alkatiri’s return to politics I have consistently argued in defence of his right to do so if and when he is cleared of all accusations. I have also accepted that it is a decision for Fretilin itself to make. The question that I have raised however is whether that would be in fretilin’s best interests but more importantely the nation’s best interests since you also agreed that he is not a political figure prone to having a unifying effect on a national level. Unless one can convincingly argue that his return to the top political job would not be problematic for the overall political stability of the country, it is fair to conclude that the opposite would certainly be the case. The issue here is not one of a minority dictating the choice of Fretilin’s leaders but: 1) Whether Fretilin’s own interests would be served by keeping Alkatiri as the candidate for PM but most important of all, 2) whether the possibility of further political instability arising from his candidacy would be in the best interests of the nation. Despite all this, it is clear that Fretilin and only Fretilin bears the burden for that decision.
RaiDobenTimor
I think we both agree on one point that Mari has the right to continue his work in Politics pending the results of investigations or any court actions. Whether FRETILIN chooses him as a candidate in forthcoming elections it is as agreed ultimately their choice. I believe he still has confidence and has won greater respect from many members of FRETILIN whether any one likes it or not.
I also would like to point out that FFDTL had been engaged in the Petiosioner issue since January 2006. The FFDTL after exhausting all efforts to resolve the issue dismissed the Petiosioners, citing many relevant issues such as discipline, involvement of some members in illegal enterprises and most importantly that the Petitioners abandoned their barracks (desertion) that carries serious penalties in the Military. After considering the attempt of the FFDTL to find a solution and the need to preserve a form of autonomy within the army in its decision making the Government supported the decision of the Military.
The only person not supporting that decision was the President, who also during the crisis triggered the ethnical unrests by making inflammatory remarks. The President never acted in the interest of the nation by not engaging or participating in any dispute resolution initiatives. The President had remained silent over the course of the issue even though he was one of the first recipients of the Petition from the Petitioners and the "Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces".
The President has dealt with the issue precariously. He had tried to resolve the issues outside the confines of the constitution yet he was unsuccessful. He could not dismiss the Prime Minister (only received Mari's resignation), remove the whole Government from office nor dissolve the Parliament. The President is looking less like the unifying symbol that he once was.
Maybe you could shed some light into the Presidents actions during the crisis.
RaiDobenTimor
Frankly in light of our previous arguments I think you are somewhat confused by what pragmatism or idealism is.
Lets change subject...Lets look at Xanana
Timor2
Timor2,
Funny because I think,given your last comment, that you're the one confused with the meaning of pragmatism.
It is very clear, in the light of the crisis that resulted, that the issue of the 600 petitioners was not was just a matter of disciplinary action. That the most pragmatic perspective would have been, in fact, not to consider it as a mere disciplinary action but an issue of political and social ramificatons that had the potential to provoke something far worse and more insidious than the precedent that Alkatiri was so scared to set and therefore required a different approach and a diferent decision.
In other words a more pragmatic approach and decision that would have avoided this crisis.
prag·ma·tism Pronunciation (prgm-tzm)
n.
1. Philosophy A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
(OR STILL)
ENCARTA
pragmatism
prag·ma·tism
noun
Definition:
1. way of thinking about results: a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles
2. way of evaluating theories: a philosophical view that a theory or concept should be evaluated in terms of how it works and its consequences as the standard for action and thought.
See also instrumentalism
(MORE STILL)
WIKIPEDIA
Pragmatism (non-technical usage)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up pragmatism in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
* In ordinary usage, pragmatism refers to behavior which temporarily sets aside a more minor ideal to achieve some higher ideal.
Therefore the decision do sack 600 soldiers o the basis of disciplinary action, a minor ideal or some principle such as the posible setting of a precedent, should have given way for a decision in order to achieve a higher ideal, i.e. national stability, social cohesion, etc.
The results of that decision is very clear by now. Many people have died and many are still living its consequences.
In any case i agree to stop it here.
RaiDobenTimor
RaiDobenTimor
With hindsight it is easy to say that the sacking of 600 soldiers was THE mistake that led to the deaths of people. However, there are many other factors that contributed to the escalation of violence. I think we all acknowledge that.
What would you do if 600 soldiers deserted their barracks without the hindsight we now have?
Enviar um comentário