Stupid reasons why parliamentary system is bad

| 1 Comment

The tiny nation of Maldives is going to have a referendum this month on whether to have a parliamentary or presidential system of government. Their president, Asia’s longest serving ruler, and who has been the world’s longest serving central bank governor and defense minister, wants a presidential system for the country. This is how one of his appointees in the parliament justified why the country cannot afford a parliamentary system;

“Out of the five hundred members in [the Indian] parliament, twenty nine members have physically abused their wives. Seven have been detained for bribery. One hundred are seventeen are accused of rape, murder or theft. Seventy one are now denied loans from banks, because they have not made repayments. Twenty one have ongoing court cases. Eighty four have been fined for various offences.”

“This is the nature of the people who will lead us in a parliamentary system of government.”

The Information Minister Mohamed Nasheed went to on to say, Indian MPs “are not able to deal with any issues,” because of “walkouts, peoples’ clothes being ripped off, [and] a woman’s sari being taken off.”

1 Comment

That doesn't seem like a reason the country can't "afford" a parliamentary system. If economies of scale exist in a parliamentary system, then perhaps that nation is too small to support such a system. However, one cannot ignore the benefits of a parliamentary system simply by citing anecdotal evidence from a country that has failed to implement the system correctly, justly, or ethically.


Powered by Movable Type 5.02

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Paul published on August 13, 2007 5:39 PM.

Maldives Rising was the previous entry in this blog.

Dead Men Do Vote is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.