"The only thing the PR could have done was to provide his OPINION to the relevant intitutions with the responsibility to deal with the issue."
The PR's position was ambiguous, simple as that. I think what you need to understand is your inability to criticise his actions. As I said, if he didn't agree with the decion he should not have accepted it, and this more so because the "rebels" saw him as their commander. Do I need to point to you the amount of times where Reinado, Tara and Salsinha and co said that?
His position and the respect that he has in society meant that he had to be firm in adopting one position or another. He is an absolutely incomptetent president.
And as for him not intervening with government affairs, how do you explain the following:
1. His decision that Fretilin was illegitmate: A judicial function, not a decision within his competency. The Court of Appeal has ruled on this issue.
2. His demand that Alkatiri resign on the basis of video evidence. He can't demand the forced resisgnation of a PM.
3. His effective choice of JRH as PM. Three options were open to him to chose a PM, but he has no constitutional authority to do so. Admittedly in this case, realpolitk prevailed, but only because of the behaviour of "Mr big boss" Xanana Gusmao. This is hard to prove, but it was well known that XG would have not accepted anyone else- so the ruling party was forced to nominate JRH.
In light of the three examples above (and there are probably more) your argument that "His ACCEPTANCE of the decision just means that he recognised the government's legal authority over the matter." doesn't stack up. The President has hardly any understanding of how a government is run or the functioning of the seperate arms of government. This has been shown by the fact that he has continously acted beyond the powers bestowed to him under the Constitution.
Understand that!
.
sábado, agosto 19, 2006
Dos leitores
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
3 comentários:
I would change your nr 2: '2. His demand that Alkatiri resign on the basis of video evidence. He can't demand the forced resisgnation of a PM' - to video allegatioms - since nothing has yet been proven before the justice system.
If you understand so much about the functioning of government and the principle of separation of powers then answer me just one question.
You keep insisting that "...if he didn't agree with the decion he should not have accepted it, and this more so because the "rebels" saw him as their commander."
OK. Let's say he did not accept it as you suggested. Then what? What could possibly result from him not accepting that decision?
If you can answer this question adequately I will concede that you are right or else just stop insisting on it.
As for he "video evidence" as the basis for the resignation demand you must not really believe in that, do you?
Most people would have come to the conclusion that the crisis lived at the time would have been the real basis to warrant Alkatiri's dismissal. In any other democratic country, the people would be looking at their PM asking for political responsibility if their lives had descended into total caos as it did in Dili.
No PM in a democratic country would have survived such a serious crisis that ultimately saw the country depending on foreign troops to ensure security. No doubt the PM would have been gone.
Anyway if you can answer my previous question I would be much obliged.
Sábado, Agosto 19, 2006 5:52:12 PM
Anonymous said...
In response to 5:52:12 PM
Your answer: As I said, the fact that Xanana accepted and disagreed with the decision is contradictory and ambiguous. It is another example of our President's ambiguous/contradictory approach to the crisis. It showed that the President was incapable of taking a clear stance on issues- ie a sign of weakness.
As the President was perceived to be weak or unable to take a clear stance, the rebels would have gained confidence that they could escalate their demands from having their grievances answered to demanding a change of government/resignation of a PM, which I think you would agree, they have no right to do so. The change in demands occurred before Reinado allegedly attacked the FFDTL soldiers and before foreign soldiers were called in. In my view, it got to that stage partly (there are other factors) because the President was ambiguous and weak.
At no stage did the President ever say "you can't make those demands. Demand that your grievances be met, but not for a change in governnment". When you have what is an armed coup taking place you need a very strong figure to help guide the country. The President, unfortunately, was everything but that and thats why I am bringing up his contradictory nature.
You are right, in the sense that the President could not have done anything about the decision ie he had no power to reverse it. I'll concede that point. However, the President's stance matters as he has moral authority. The fact that he was ambiguous is a sign of weakness and, as I said, would have emboldened the rebels to escalate their demands.
Don't get me wrong, Xanana is a resistance hero, and I love him for that. However, he is too soft to be the President of a young democracy.
As for Alkatiri, I already said that he has taken his responsibility by resigning (look at what I wrote at 2:23:36 PM). However, he is not the only person responsible for the crisis. Your inability to look at our President and realise that he flaws and has made major mistakes is frankly quite startling.
Also, as to your comment "As for he "video evidence" as the basis for the resignation demand you must not really believe in that, do you?"- maybe the Governor General in Australia should hand a video to Howard/Downer about the AWB scandal and ask for their resignation? It was simply another example of incompetence from the President.
Sábado, Agosto 19, 2006 8:52:33 PM
Anonymous said...
8:52:33 PM anonymous,
I take it that your real answer and the closest anyway to my question is contained in your following statment:
"You are right, in the sense that the President could not have done anything about the decision ie he had no power to reverse it. I'll concede that point."
That is the reason why he accepted it. But he did not agree with it and he made very clear the reasons for his disagreement. He correctly argued that the petitioners issue should have been dealt with much more sensitivity and should not have been reduced to a disciplinary issue.
First because it was a very substancial number of soldiers involved.
Second because they all came from the West.
Thus, any disciplinary action that resulted in a mass sacking as it happened, although legally correct, it would always have been perceived by those people as further discrimination against the loromonu.
Although this was never the intention of the government that is exactly how they perceived it.
As such his stance was not ambiguos at all. Now, that by him disagreeing with it the petitioners may have felt vindicated in some way is very possible. Inversely, do you think that if he had publicly agreed with the decision (when infact he didn't) would have resulted in the petitioners dropping their claims and going home? Not only do I have serious doubts about that, but I could bet they would not.
On the other hand, if the president had not accepted the decision as you previously suggested ("As I said, if he didn't agree with the decion he should not have accepted it...") not only it would not reverse the decision but it would definitely boost the petitioner's confidence beyond him disagreeing but ACCEPTING the decision. Don't you think?
Now for the change of demands we must look at it in a fair way. The call for the PM's resignation came after the incident on April 28-29 at Tasitolo. Previous to that the petitioners were demanding that their grievances regarding discrimination be adressed. After the military intervention in Tasitolo they changed the demands to call the PM to stand down.
From their perspective, the government had proved its willingness to use military force do supress them so its is only logical that they would have changed their demands. Surely, others including political elements sought to take advantage of this unrest and score some political goals in their favour and there is no denying that.
However they would not have had that oportunity had the petitioner's case been resolved in a timely and more sensitivy manner.
To me this was a tactical error on the government's side as it had not considered all possible consequences of failing to efectively resolved the problem much earlier in time and the single biggest mistake was to send the troops in to deal with a internal security issue without satisfying all the legal procedures.
At one stage Alfredo said that the deaths in Tasitolo which ended up escalating the problem to a higher level of seriousness would not have happened if the government had called instead on the Military Police to go and deal with the petitioners. That however is something we'll never be able to know.
Sábado, Agosto 19, 2006 10:12:17 PM
Tradução:
Dos leitores
"A única coisa que o PR podia ter feito era fornecer a sua OPINIÃO às instituições relevantes com a responsabilidade de lidarem com a questão."
A posição do PR foi ambígua, tão simples quanto isto. Penso que precisa de entender é a sua incapacidade em criticar as suas acções. Como disse, se ele não concordava com a decisão não a devia ter aceite, e isso tanto mais porque os "rebeldes" o viam como o comandante deles. Preciso de lembrar-lhe a quantidade de vezes que Reinado, Tara e Salsinha e Cª disseram isso?
A sua posição e o respeito que tem na sociedade significam que ele tinha de ser firme adoptando uma ou outra posição. É um presidente absolutamente incomptetente.
E quanto a ele não interferir nos assuntos do governo, como explica o seguinte:
1. A sua decisão de que a Fretilin era ilegítima: uma função judicial, não uma decisão da sua competência. O Tribunal de Recurso arrumou esta questão.
2. A sua exigência que Alkatiri resignasse com base em evidência video. Ele não pode exigir a resignação forçada de um a PM.
3. A sua escolha efectiva de JRH como PM. Foram-lhe colocadas três opções para escolher um PM, mas ele não tem autoridade constitucional para fazer assim. Reconhecidamente neste caso, prevaleceu a realpolitk, mas somente por causa do comportamento do “grande capataz” Xanana Gusmão. Isto é difícil de provar, mas era bastante conhecido que XG não aceitaria mais ninguém - assim o partido no poder foi forçado a indicar JRH.
À luz destes três exemplos (e há mais provavelmente) o seu argumento que "a sua (dele) ACEITAÇÃO da decisão significa somente que reconheceu a autoridade legal do governo na questão" não cola. O Presidente não tem o mínimo entendimento de como se dirige um governo ou do funcionamento dos diferentes ramos do governo. Isto tem sido mostrado pelo facto dele agir constantemente acima dos poderes que a Constituição lhe concedeu.
Entenda isto!
Enviar um comentário