« Other African presidents may follow the path of Robert Mogabe »
'' Faced with civil society, the face of opposition, faced with some members of the international community, given the shambles, the Burundi regime held firm ...
The debate on the respect of the limitation of presidential terms agitated companies in several African countries for some time.It should continue in the coming months.The dividing line is clear: on one side the citizens, in their majority, require their executives to comply with the requirements of the Basic Law in their respective countries;several of the other leaders were tempted to push through, for reasons often blurred.
The debate on the limitation of presidential terms is actually a debate on the organization of political systems and the democratization of African countries, and it is unfortunate that African civil societies to seize only in pre-election period.
Regrettable because due timing, this debate is led by the small end of the telescope, with a risk of confusion.The constitutions of several African countries (including French) limit in effect to two the number of presidential terms.When African civil societies braced on compliance with this provision, they give the feeling, beyond the question of principle, that the limitation of presidential terms is justified of all time, in any place, irrespective of the stage development of a society, the specific needs of each country, the quality of the incumbent President.Really?Either.Why then two (not one, not three, let alone four) terms, one is tempted to ask.Where does this lucky number?
The answer is simple: the constitutions of most countries in sub-Saharan Africa are inspired by Western constitutions (particularly that of France in the case of French-speaking African countries).But where they are the result of a long history of specific historical trajectories, a serious reflection on the most appropriate form of government to build a prosperous and harmonious society, those are artificial and often count among the vestiges of the colonial era.
Obviously the risk, when a constitution was bequeathed rather than freely shaped by the popular will, is that the imperfections or the mistakes of the mother are found in the Constitution girl Constitution.At this point, it returns sacred to sanctify the imperfections of that.
The limitation of presidential terms, two moreover, partly illustrates this phenomenon.
In the US, the oldest representative democracy in the world, the constitution of 1787 did not include any limitation of presidential terms.The founding fathers of the United States, particularly Alexander Hamilton, had carefully considered this issue and believed that term limits would encourage conduct contrary to the country's interests and undermine the necessary stability of the government.Ronald Reagan believed meanwhile that in a democracy only the sovereign people is entitled to limit the mandate of Presidents.
LABOUR politicians.
Is not the reason for the vote?It was George Washington who, exhausted by a long career dedicated to public service, decided to limit presidential terms to two and thus initiated what became a tradition.Indeed successive American presidents walked in his footsteps, until the arrival of the Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).The latter was elected four times (the last two mandates in 1940 and 1944), which, we must believe, irritated Republicans.In 1947, the majority in both chambers, they allied themselves with the Democrats in the Southern United States (which had opposed the New Deal of FDR) to vote, after brief discussion, the 22nd Amendment the Constitution expressly limits to two the number of presidential terms in the United States.
The majority of sub-Saharan African states are under construction.Note that at the time this provision was seen as a way to discredit the legacy of FDR.The limitation of presidential terms in the US therefore from political maneuvers.We can also imagine that if George Washington had decided to limit himself to three terms instead of two, the 22nd Amendment would limit to three the number of presidential terms.
And perhaps today African public opinions would require leaders that they are limited to three terms, no more!
Several African leaders of our time have an immoderate taste for power.The temptation to force the constitutionally is understandable, and the wish of a majority of African views to see the respect the Fundamental Law of their country is legitimate. "
The debate on the respect of the limitation of presidential terms agitated companies in several African countries for some time.It should continue in the coming months.The dividing line is clear: on one side the citizens, in their majority, require their executives to comply with the requirements of the Basic Law in their respective countries;several of the other leaders were tempted to push through, for reasons often blurred.
The debate on the limitation of presidential terms is actually a debate on the organization of political systems and the democratization of African countries, and it is unfortunate that African civil societies to seize only in pre-election period.
Regrettable because due timing, this debate is led by the small end of the telescope, with a risk of confusion.The constitutions of several African countries (including French) limit in effect to two the number of presidential terms.When African civil societies braced on compliance with this provision, they give the feeling, beyond the question of principle, that the limitation of presidential terms is justified of all time, in any place, irrespective of the stage development of a society, the specific needs of each country, the quality of the incumbent President.Really?Either.Why then two (not one, not three, let alone four) terms, one is tempted to ask.Where does this lucky number?
The answer is simple: the constitutions of most countries in sub-Saharan Africa are inspired by Western constitutions (particularly that of France in the case of French-speaking African countries).But where they are the result of a long history of specific historical trajectories, a serious reflection on the most appropriate form of government to build a prosperous and harmonious society, those are artificial and often count among the vestiges of the colonial era.
Obviously the risk, when a constitution was bequeathed rather than freely shaped by the popular will, is that the imperfections or the mistakes of the mother are found in the Constitution girl Constitution.At this point, it returns sacred to sanctify the imperfections of that.
The limitation of presidential terms, two moreover, partly illustrates this phenomenon.
In the US, the oldest representative democracy in the world, the constitution of 1787 did not include any limitation of presidential terms.The founding fathers of the United States, particularly Alexander Hamilton, had carefully considered this issue and believed that term limits would encourage conduct contrary to the country's interests and undermine the necessary stability of the government.Ronald Reagan believed meanwhile that in a democracy only the sovereign people is entitled to limit the mandate of Presidents.
LABOUR politicians.
Is not the reason for the vote?It was George Washington who, exhausted by a long career dedicated to public service, decided to limit presidential terms to two and thus initiated what became a tradition.Indeed successive American presidents walked in his footsteps, until the arrival of the Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).The latter was elected four times (the last two mandates in 1940 and 1944), which, we must believe, irritated Republicans.In 1947, the majority in both chambers, they allied themselves with the Democrats in the Southern United States (which had opposed the New Deal of FDR) to vote, after brief discussion, the 22nd Amendment the Constitution expressly limits to two the number of presidential terms in the United States.
The majority of sub-Saharan African states are under construction.Note that at the time this provision was seen as a way to discredit the legacy of FDR.The limitation of presidential terms in the US therefore from political maneuvers.We can also imagine that if George Washington had decided to limit himself to three terms instead of two, the 22nd Amendment would limit to three the number of presidential terms.
And perhaps today African public opinions would require leaders that they are limited to three terms, no more!
Several African leaders of our time have an immoderate taste for power.The temptation to force the constitutionally is understandable, and the wish of a majority of African views to see the respect the Fundamental Law of their country is legitimate. "
Commentaires