> The country of Bengal is a land where, owing to the climate’s favouring the base, the dust of dissension is always rising – so said the Mughal court chronicler and grand vizier Abul Fazl in the 16th century.
Thank you for introducing me to this quote. I'm gonna put it on a t-shirt.
> Bangladesh is a unitary republic with a unicameral legislature and a first-past-the-post voting system –all legacy of the Raj. To this, the country’s constitution added a provision that prohibited floor-crossing. Further, the local governments’ powers have been whittled away over the years.
I don't think you can blame the Raj for the problems of our own countrymen. The floor crossing prohibition was introduced by south Asian leaders in the 70s-80s period. The centralisation of power was caused by the socialist ideology of our national leaders. The adoption of this idealogy was also self imposed so we should really get over our victim complex.
Also instead of your proposed own electoral changes - proportional representation + semi presidentialism - why not just empower local governments + get rid of the constitutional amendment against floor-crossing. Empowered MPs can simply sack a PM if they feel like it.
Also you can see the problems of proportional representation in Europe today. Weak coalitions that break often resulting in frequent elections or the country being ruled by non partisan technocrats. If you introduce an elected president into the mix, they'll just sideline a divided parliament and concentrate more power onto themselves.
Legacy of thr Raj doesn't mean the Raj is responsible. Nor do I think socialism has anything to do with centralising tendency. Good points re: possible constitutional amendments.
> The country of Bengal is a land where, owing to the climate’s favouring the base, the dust of dissension is always rising – so said the Mughal court chronicler and grand vizier Abul Fazl in the 16th century.
Thank you for introducing me to this quote. I'm gonna put it on a t-shirt.
> Bangladesh is a unitary republic with a unicameral legislature and a first-past-the-post voting system –all legacy of the Raj. To this, the country’s constitution added a provision that prohibited floor-crossing. Further, the local governments’ powers have been whittled away over the years.
I don't think you can blame the Raj for the problems of our own countrymen. The floor crossing prohibition was introduced by south Asian leaders in the 70s-80s period. The centralisation of power was caused by the socialist ideology of our national leaders. The adoption of this idealogy was also self imposed so we should really get over our victim complex.
Also instead of your proposed own electoral changes - proportional representation + semi presidentialism - why not just empower local governments + get rid of the constitutional amendment against floor-crossing. Empowered MPs can simply sack a PM if they feel like it.
Also you can see the problems of proportional representation in Europe today. Weak coalitions that break often resulting in frequent elections or the country being ruled by non partisan technocrats. If you introduce an elected president into the mix, they'll just sideline a divided parliament and concentrate more power onto themselves.
Legacy of thr Raj doesn't mean the Raj is responsible. Nor do I think socialism has anything to do with centralising tendency. Good points re: possible constitutional amendments.
The centralisation of the Indian Republic is blamed on Nehru's vision for socialism. Plus our constitution was written by a bunch of commies.
Wrong on both counts. May I politely suggest reading up a bit more on these matters?