Tuesday, July 10, 2007

ބަރުލަމާނީ ނިޒާމަސް ރަންގަޅަ. ރިޔާސީ ނިޒާމް އަދި މާރަންގަޅަ.

ބަރުލަމާނީ ނިޒާމަސް ރަންގަޅަ. އެކަމެކި ވެރިކަމިގެ ތިންބާރަ މިޅިލެން ވަކިވެފޭ ނިއޮވޭ. ރިޔާސީ ނިޒާމި ވެރިކަމިގެ ތިންބާރަ ވެނީ ފުރިހަމާށަ ވަކިވެފޭ. ވީންމާ ރިޔާސީ ނިޒާމް އަދި މާރަންގަޅަ.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

this is propaganda. know more about parliamentary system and change your images. judiciary can at least be separate.

idhikeeli said...

There is no intention to spread propaganda. We know that the judiciary is separate in parliamentary system. All images have been changed accordingly. Thanks for the criticism. We don't have anything to gain from misleading the people

Anonymous said...

under strong party politics as we find now, if a person from the majority party in the legislature wins the presidential election, there will not, in effect, be a separation of the legislature from the executive even in a presidential system. these images and slogan mislead more than they explain things.

idhikeeli said...

Anonymous: There is agreement among most political scientists that there is a greater degree of separation of powers in a Presidential System than in a Parliamentary System. There is a huge difference between a Prime Minister selected by the majority party in the parliament and the PM's cabinet that also comprises of MPs, and a President elected by people in a separate election. Even in the scenario you mentioned, in USA, for example, there will be parliamentary elections every two years. The scenario you mentioned does not create an overlap of the legislature and executive. It is not us who are trying to mislead. Rather it is MDP, a party that promised democracy for the people, that is not trying but actually misleading the people. Read their mouthpiece Minivan Daily, read their leaflets, and you will see through their false facade.

Anonymous said...

I am not here to argue about the alleged benefits or drawbacks of either presidentialism or parliamentarianism. I wanted to raise the point that, to me, the images and sloganeering do not help much.

I don’t deny that presidentialism may serve greater ‘separation of powers’. But the claim by appealing to ‘most political scientists’ does not tell much about reality, and the reality in our case.

The ‘scenario’ I mention does not create an ‘overlap’ in the sense that the executive ministers and president will be in the parliament. But my ‘scenario’ shows there is no effective separation between the executive and the parliament. That is to say, parliamentarianism’s fusion of the executive with (a part of) the parliament and the ‘scenario’ of presidentialism I stated are structurally different, but their functional effect is the same.

Also consider these points: should the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’ as understood theoretically be the ‘tie-breaker’ in our decision? How about our normative goal(s) for the long run? Which system, if any, can serve such normative goals best? Do we have such goals? What are our biggest problems now? Will any institutional system advantage in rectifying them? How about we consider the growing diversity in the country? Will any institutional system advantage to mediate pluralistic politics and interests?

Finally, I have no connection whatever with the MDP.

Ibrahim Huzam said...

Can't you guys write in simple and correct English, without so much technical jargons? I didn't visit this site to assess your level of English, but to read and understand the message you people are trying to get across.