Most countries, like Namibia, the UK and other democratic countries, hold their elections every five years or so usually all in one go, for president, members of parliament, and other officials, although minor elections for local authorities may be held at other times . In the US there are elections every four years (sounds like a compromise arrangement from an original five) for of course the President and most of the Senate and house of representatives (lower house) seats. A sitting President may stand for another term, but only one, setting the general 'maximum of two terms' pattern, imposed of many countries by the West. Interestingly, though, there was originally no limit on the length of time a US president could serve - the iconic leader during the Great Depression and World war 2, Franklin Roosevelt, served three terms and died during his fourth. His Republican opponents thereafter, fearing a repeat performance by someone else, changed the constitution to limit the number of presidential terms to two.
Anyway, getting back to our point, not only are there the main elections every four years in the US, there are the 'mid-terms' every two years, most of the upper and lower House seats are up for grabs (though not the President's position). Was this because there was a high turnover of congressmen in the early days? But now the 'mid-terms' definitely serve the purpose of a 'safety valve' and protest vote. Usually the party of the President and/or government loses heavily, and the opposition picks up much support, which may or may not be an indication for the coming main election.
This time, the results were worse than usual for the incumbent, President Obama. He lost control of both houses of the US congress to his opponents, the Republicans. It may sound strange to many outsiders that a President can govern with both houses of parliament opposed to him (can you imagine President Putin allowing that!) but it happens in the US system, and it will force the President to compromise on his policies (if any) in order to find some common ground with his political opponents and to get something done in his final two years in office. It is an effective check-and-balance - which of course may mean the same thing as stalemate and gridlock.
Now take Burkina Faso, where the incumbent president took office 27 long years ago after the death in mysterious circumstances of the previous President Thomas Sangara. There is a seven year presidential term there, and sure, there was an election every seven years, whose openness was questionable. Voters who disapproved could only console themselves that would be rid of him in 14 years, after the maximum length of time in office. But no, when he was due to retire - out of the blue he wanted to change the constitution to allow him to run for another term, and maybe and indefinite number of terms after that. Tensions boiled over, with results which everyone has seen on TV - the president fled the country, showing that his motivation for the constitutional change was less than watertight, and there we a confused military takeover, whose outcome is not yet clear. The system did not allow for any 'safety valve'.
What of Namibia? The ruling party is very firmed entrenched in power, its mixed-economy policies are most uncontroversial, and the opposition lacks a coherent voice or a coherent political philosophy of how differently they would do things. The election result is therefore a foregone conclusion, but if any public resentments build up, likely over corruption, badly run schools or difficult-to-access government services, where will such resentment go? Five years is a long time to wait for the next election, and maybe Namibia could also do with some form of 'mid-terms'.
No comments:
Post a Comment