The Court of Appeal recognised the sensitivity of the issue and sought to explain that even if the challenge to the vote had come in time, it would not have succeeded anyway. The Court's decision was important, not only because it clarified the position in relation to the voting by show of hands, but also because it rejected the use of judicial power by the President (ie it reinforced the separation of powers). The court's interpretation was purely legal, but unfortunately you see it as a political statement because it may not serve your interests.
Accept the decision and get on with your lives. And by the way, Guterres and de Jesus did not even nominate themselves for a leadership challenge because they couldn't get 20% of the delegates to support their nomination. On one argument, there was no need to even have a vote because there was only one leadership package put forward by the Congress, that of Alkatiri and Lu-Olo. It is so painful to hear the truth isn't it?
.
terça-feira, setembro 19, 2006
De um leitor
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
3 comentários:
Pois não conseguiram os 20%, mas foi porque sabendo de antemão que era voto de sovaco ao ar, os delegados pensaram nos empregos e nas famílias que têm de sustentar e coibiram-se. É para o que serve o voto de braço no ar.
A FRETILIN nestas coisas é como o PC Chinês ou Soviético, quando se cai em desgraça....
In response to Setembro 20, 2006 7:19:12 AM
I can't say that I totally understand Portuguese, but from a read of your entry, you are saying that Guterres and de Jesus withdrew because they knew that voting was to be done by show of hands. The problem is that how can they "withdraw" from the election if they weren't even in the election? The fact that Guterres and de Jesus did not even nominate for the election (by getting 20% of Delegates to support their candidacy) meant that they weren't even entitled to participate in the election. Please don't try to cloud the issue. Guterres and de Jesus did not even have enough support to even contest the election.
As I said, there is one argument that there was no need to have the election at all because there was only one candidacy put forward by the Congress. If Guterres and de Jesus did nominate for the election, then this argument would fail.
Guterres and de Jesus simply did not have support- get over it. They submitted and withdrew their candidacy through the media- not at the Congress.
Tradução:
De um leitor
O Tribunal de Recurso reconheceu a sensibilidade da questão e teve o cuidado de explicar que mesmo se a contestação tivesse entrado dentro prazo, não teria na mesma sucesso. A decisão do Tribunal foi importante, não somente porque clarificou a posição em relação ao modo de votação (braço no ar), mas também porque rejeitou o uso do poder judicial pelo Presidente (i.e. reforçou a separação dos poderes). A interpretação do Tribunal foi puramente legal, mas infelizmente vê-la como uma declaração política porque não serviu os seus interesses.
Aeite a decisão e ande para a frente. De qualquer modo, Guterres e de Jesus nem sequer se propuseram para um desafio de liderança porque não conseguiram que 20% dos delegados apoiassem a sua nomeação. Mais um argumento, nem havia a necessidade de se proceder à votação porque só havia uma proposta de liderança apresentada ao Congresso, a de Alkatiri e Lu-Olo. É doloroso ouvir a verdade, não é?
Enviar um comentário