Wednesday, December 20, 2006

charter change

True to its well established unpredictable mentation if not downright deceitful disposition. The present national leadership is once again avidly pursuing Charter Change after having decidedly shelved it but some days ago. At first, it tried the discredited “Peoples Initiative”. Then, it attempted to push the infamous “Constituent Assembly”. Now, it is fixated with going for “Constitutional Convention—the earlier the better, but definitely before 2010.

Sad to say, the incumbent national leadership is used to claim many personal attributes and exceptional official talents…but to date, it may not and would not dare appropriate for itself the virtues of honesty and integrity—not with the long list of its well perceived serious misdeeds even before it assumed office—with legitimacy or otherwise.

That is why it is a big danger if the national leadership were allowed to satisfy its obsession to change the constitution during its tenure of office. Changing the fundamental of the land is not the problem. The problem is the holder of the highest office in the land, fixated with making the change.

There are basic constitutional phases in Charter Change: One, the election of the delegates. Two, the workings of the convention. Three, the holding of the plebiscites.

If the constitutional convention were held during the incumbency of the present national leadership, there is the strong presumption akin to moral certitude that it would directly and indirectly intervene in all those three phases of constitutional change—to protect and further its super egoistic interests. This it will and can readily do with the power it flaunts, the public wealth at its devious disposal, the insidious influence it wields.

It can be readily predicted that among other constitutional changes, the ruling national leadership will resolutely and strongly push for the adoption of a parliamentary form of government. The reason is obvious: First, it would do away with even pending impeachment case. Second, it would be able to extend its rule one way or another. Third, it would manage to hold on to immunity from suit as long as legally possible. How neat!

The conclusion is obvious: Charter Change, Yes! During the present administration: No! Constitutional Convention, Yes! During the incumbent national leadership: No!

20 December 2006