This situation is very interesting. Some people are on strike, which is not very remarkable. What is, is what the strikers are objecting to. From the report,
"The strikers are objecting to plans to allow a constituent assembly to amend the charter by simple majority vote."
Now, will somebody explain - in a constituent assembly (in a democracy, one assumes), if you can't change things through a simple majority... how are you supposed to change the charter?
The report says that -
"A power struggle between Bolivia's wealthier, white elite - which opposes the changes - and its indigenous majority is at the heart of the row."
Ah!
3 comments:
well it depends on how the variety of people in that assembly is...
but ya its funny for sure...
sheetal: you're right about that.
suresh: I'm intrigued, now. What do you assume my 'background' is? And what makes you think that my background will, in any way, determine my political opinions?
The point here, in essence, is about democracy. Democracy is based on 'majorityism'. Majority does win, whether we like it or not, whether it suits diverse minority backgrounds or not. And if you allow a government to be formed based on a simple majority, or even a coalition, which is no kind of majority, really, then you have no business questioning this majority when it seeks to make far-reaching changes, just because it no longer suits you.
As far as Hindi being the national language is concerned, I don't have much of an opinion on the issue. We had to have one language, after all... or perhaps, we did not have to have any one, and only one, state language.
But, tell me, what would you have preferred? Suppose the decision was yours to make; would you have chosen another language? Which one? On what basis? Would there ever have been a two-thirds majority?
suresh: the discussion was just beginning to warm up, I thought. might have gone interesting places... but I will respect your wishes and not take this any further, not on this thread, at least.
Post a Comment