Rašyti komentarą...
Nuoroda nukopijuota
× Pranešti klaidą
kritiškas "D" komentaras tikrai įdomus, pagarba.
Tema užkabinta labai svarbi, tik sprendimai kelia abejonių. Gaila, bet nepanašu kad Kulikauskas norėtų padiskutuoti.
Tema užkabinta labai svarbi, tik sprendimai kelia abejonių. Gaila, bet nepanašu kad Kulikauskas norėtų padiskutuoti.
Drebantis baimeje ir stenantis niekus.
išlindai kaip kiaulė iš bulvienojų ir kriuktelėjai. Nežinai žmogaus - tylėk. Jeigu pats brudas - kitų tuo pačiu netepk. Kulakauskui pagarba, šviesus ir padorus žmogus. O sovietmečiu jis kaip tik labai garbingai elgėsi. Tyrinėjo XIX a. carinės administracijos priespaudą Lietuvoje. Todėl ir visokia "stepai" (ar stiopos?) karjerą ir gyvenimą jam gadino.
Prajuokinote. Suachili Rytų Afrikos tarptautinė bendravimo kalba nuo Sudano iki Kapo provincijos. Papuasais paprastai įsivaizduojama visus juodus, plačia nosimi, barzdotus, plikus - tik su virvele apie juosmenį. Būtinai išsišiepusius ir kratančius ietį rankoje.Kam siuntinėti į lietuvišką portalą svetima kalba surašytas paklodes? Neturi savo minčių ar "iš didelio rašto išėjo iš krašto".
Profesoriui Pšechui
Malonu sutikti išsilavinusį ir apsiskaičiusį komentatorių. Kadangi papuasų kalbos nėra, tad priverstas į jus kreiptis „svahili“: „Telika tetoious ilithious mono stin plaka aksizei na tous pairneis...“ Neabejoju, kad supratote.
„Svahili“ — būtent taip rašoma šį kalba lietuviškai. „Suachili“ – baltarusiškai arba šalčininkiškai, dar „суахілі“ (pagal Lukašenkos raidyną). Tarp kitko, lenkų kalboje ji rašoma „suahili“.
Tik va, užjaučiu, „profesūros“ diskusijai teks pasiieškoti, kur nors kitur. Gal kokiame „šalčininkų pravdos“ portale. Ten ir abėcėlė turtingesnė, ir lotyniškų raidžių daugiau...
Kokių paklodžių prikišo į komentarus suachili ar papuasu šnekta?
Revolution at Westminster?
Only a novel kind of interaction between Parliament and the people can give Britain the constitutional moment it needs
Timothy Garton Ash
From Thursday’s Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Jul. 11, 2009 04:44AM EDT
Unless I’ve missed something, Britain has not just emerged from a war, revolution or declaration of independence. Such are the exceptional circumstances that are usually needed to produce a constitutional moment.
And yet – incongruously precipitated by revelations about British MPs claiming expenses for items such as a little wooden house for ducks on a duck pond – there is a widespread acknowledgment that Britain’s political system is in a profound crisis. Earlier this week, I heard Dominic Grieve, the opposition spokesman on home affairs, say this crisis could put in question “the foundations of the legitimacy of the state.”
There is no agreement about the solution. Many in the political class still appear to believe that patchwork repairs will be sufficient. They are wrong. Britain does not need a revolution, but it does need a great reform. There is something fundamentally wrong with a state that is so grossly overcentralized and has such an overmighty executive, restrained only by judges implementing the country’s Human Rights Act, unelected lords and journalists.
In theory, Britain has a sovereign Parliament. In practice, as Mr. Grieve told a meeting at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, the recent history of Parliament is that of its increasing subordination to the executive. Labour MP Tony Wright agreed: Here is a Parliament that, in practice, refuses to be sovereign since “the main objective of members of the legislature is to join the executive.” The electoral system, he added, is really about choosing a government, not representatives of the people.
Britain’s task, therefore, is to create and sustain a constitutional moment, without the historical circumstances that usually give rise to one. This requires exceptional initiatives from above and from below, from Parliament and from the people. At the moment, there is too little and too much from both sides. There are innumerable proposals, speeches and initiatives, but it is wholly unclear how any of this will come together to produce change.
What has emerged from above is pretty minimal. The House of Commons will clean up its act on expenses. This fall, a select committee, chaired by Mr. Wright, should propose some significant improvements to the way the House conducts its business. There is also, once again, a serious discussion about electoral reform. Alan Johnson, a strong contender to be Labour’s next leader, restated his proposal this week for an election-day referendum on the “alternative vote plus” system – the one recommended a decade ago by a commission headed by Roy Jenkins, the former Labour minister and European Commission president, but then shelved by the Blair government.
Meantime, the game called politics continues being played on the country’s television screens. But how many Britons feel these are their representatives? The intermediate levels of democratic participation are either weak or non-existent, unlike the flourishing local and regional democracy of America and much of continental Europe. Yes, once every four or five years, the British voter can help to “kick the bastards out.” Then a new bunch will head to Westminster, and go on playing the same game the same way.
Outside the walls of Parliament and its attendant TV studios, there’s a plethora of new initiatives fizzling off in all directions. Tonight, for instance, there’s a rally in Westminster’s Methodist Central Hall, organized by the Vote for Change coalition with music by Billy Bragg to stir enthusiasm for electoral reform. The Unlock Democracy campaign has a draft bill to empower a citizens’ convention to decide on reforms. There’s 38degrees.org.uk, which aims to create a British online community for change.
A mighty popular mobilization is essential. Without pressure from below, British politicians will sink back into their bad old ways. But there are some hard questions to be answered. How far can popular anger at the political class be translated into sustained participation in a movement for constitutional change? Won’t such civic energy as there is be dissipated among all these diverse initiatives? In what sense can any of them claim to speak for “the people”? (A convention of randomly selected willing citizens, as pioneered in British Columbia, would go some way to meet that objection.) And, at the end of the day, how can all this be translated into legislation in Parliament and into the specific motion for a referendum?
At some point, sooner rather than later, what’s needed is a body that’s a two-way bridge between Parliament and the people. Mr. Wright, the Labour MP, has suggested calling it a “democracy commission.” It should have some people on it who really know what they’re talking about when it comes to Britain’s half-written constitution and complex political system. It should have representatives of the political parties. And it should include a student, a blogger, a couple of civil society activists – and why not some members of the general public, chosen by lot?
This cannot be a delegation from Westminster that travels around the country, graciously listening to the humble petitions of Her Majesty’s subjects, and goes on to produce compromise proposals from which the government of the day then chooses the bits it wants to push through a subservient legislature. Nor can it just be an independent citizens’ initiative from below, without the political authority to place demands before Parliament.
Neither Parliament alone nor the people alone can do the business. Only a novel kind of creative interaction between Parliament and the people can give Britain the constitutional moment it needs.
Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at Oxford University.
Only a novel kind of interaction between Parliament and the people can give Britain the constitutional moment it needs
Timothy Garton Ash
From Thursday’s Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Jul. 11, 2009 04:44AM EDT
Unless I’ve missed something, Britain has not just emerged from a war, revolution or declaration of independence. Such are the exceptional circumstances that are usually needed to produce a constitutional moment.
And yet – incongruously precipitated by revelations about British MPs claiming expenses for items such as a little wooden house for ducks on a duck pond – there is a widespread acknowledgment that Britain’s political system is in a profound crisis. Earlier this week, I heard Dominic Grieve, the opposition spokesman on home affairs, say this crisis could put in question “the foundations of the legitimacy of the state.”
There is no agreement about the solution. Many in the political class still appear to believe that patchwork repairs will be sufficient. They are wrong. Britain does not need a revolution, but it does need a great reform. There is something fundamentally wrong with a state that is so grossly overcentralized and has such an overmighty executive, restrained only by judges implementing the country’s Human Rights Act, unelected lords and journalists.
In theory, Britain has a sovereign Parliament. In practice, as Mr. Grieve told a meeting at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, the recent history of Parliament is that of its increasing subordination to the executive. Labour MP Tony Wright agreed: Here is a Parliament that, in practice, refuses to be sovereign since “the main objective of members of the legislature is to join the executive.” The electoral system, he added, is really about choosing a government, not representatives of the people.
Britain’s task, therefore, is to create and sustain a constitutional moment, without the historical circumstances that usually give rise to one. This requires exceptional initiatives from above and from below, from Parliament and from the people. At the moment, there is too little and too much from both sides. There are innumerable proposals, speeches and initiatives, but it is wholly unclear how any of this will come together to produce change.
What has emerged from above is pretty minimal. The House of Commons will clean up its act on expenses. This fall, a select committee, chaired by Mr. Wright, should propose some significant improvements to the way the House conducts its business. There is also, once again, a serious discussion about electoral reform. Alan Johnson, a strong contender to be Labour’s next leader, restated his proposal this week for an election-day referendum on the “alternative vote plus” system – the one recommended a decade ago by a commission headed by Roy Jenkins, the former Labour minister and European Commission president, but then shelved by the Blair government.
Meantime, the game called politics continues being played on the country’s television screens. But how many Britons feel these are their representatives? The intermediate levels of democratic participation are either weak or non-existent, unlike the flourishing local and regional democracy of America and much of continental Europe. Yes, once every four or five years, the British voter can help to “kick the bastards out.” Then a new bunch will head to Westminster, and go on playing the same game the same way.
Outside the walls of Parliament and its attendant TV studios, there’s a plethora of new initiatives fizzling off in all directions. Tonight, for instance, there’s a rally in Westminster’s Methodist Central Hall, organized by the Vote for Change coalition with music by Billy Bragg to stir enthusiasm for electoral reform. The Unlock Democracy campaign has a draft bill to empower a citizens’ convention to decide on reforms. There’s 38degrees.org.uk, which aims to create a British online community for change.
A mighty popular mobilization is essential. Without pressure from below, British politicians will sink back into their bad old ways. But there are some hard questions to be answered. How far can popular anger at the political class be translated into sustained participation in a movement for constitutional change? Won’t such civic energy as there is be dissipated among all these diverse initiatives? In what sense can any of them claim to speak for “the people”? (A convention of randomly selected willing citizens, as pioneered in British Columbia, would go some way to meet that objection.) And, at the end of the day, how can all this be translated into legislation in Parliament and into the specific motion for a referendum?
At some point, sooner rather than later, what’s needed is a body that’s a two-way bridge between Parliament and the people. Mr. Wright, the Labour MP, has suggested calling it a “democracy commission.” It should have some people on it who really know what they’re talking about when it comes to Britain’s half-written constitution and complex political system. It should have representatives of the political parties. And it should include a student, a blogger, a couple of civil society activists – and why not some members of the general public, chosen by lot?
This cannot be a delegation from Westminster that travels around the country, graciously listening to the humble petitions of Her Majesty’s subjects, and goes on to produce compromise proposals from which the government of the day then chooses the bits it wants to push through a subservient legislature. Nor can it just be an independent citizens’ initiative from below, without the political authority to place demands before Parliament.
Neither Parliament alone nor the people alone can do the business. Only a novel kind of creative interaction between Parliament and the people can give Britain the constitutional moment it needs.
Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at Oxford University.
Juokingai maivaisi, pan "poliak na Litvie". Latvijoje ir Lenkijoje buvo baisi korupcija. Tuo pasižymėjo Kvasnievskio prezidentavimo metu. Užtenka pažiūrėti korupcijos indeksų lenteles. Sugebėjo vogti Irake tarnaujančių lenkų karių finansavimą. Viskas tiko. Dabar, prie Tusko, padėtis pagerėjo ir gerėja.
Autorius teisingai pastebėjo, kad Seimas (partijos) neskuba taisyti Konstitucijai prieštaraujančio savivaldybių rinkimų įstatymo. Panašu, jog sunku susitaikyti su nepartinių kandidatavimu ir galimais bendrais jų sąrašais. O ten, žiūrėk, ir kaimyninės bendruomenės ims vienytis... Žodžiu, delsiama atsisakyti partinio atstovavimo monopolio.
Kulakausko pasiūlymas gali tapti puikia išeitimi stambioms partijoms, susikūrusias “savuose” rajonuose beveik feodalines kunigaikštijas. Pasiūlymas pusę mandatų dalintis tik tarp partijų, be jokios konkurencijos iš piliečių pusės, joms tikrai patiks. Stambioms partijoms patiks ir mintis perpus sumažinti daugiamandatės apygardos dydį mandatais – perpus padidėjusi vienam mandatui reikalinga kvota padės sumenkinti smulkių ir vidutinių partijų šansus.
Na, o tikriausia palaima jų laukia vienmandatėse apygardose – tai tiesiog rojus stambioms partijoms. Politologiją dėstantis A. Kulakauskas neabejotinai žino Duvergerio dėsnį – vienmandatės apygardos veda į dvipartinę sistemą. Laimėjimui būtina kvota 50% +1 įveikiama tik patiems stipriausiems politiniams dariniams. Su vietinių administracinių resursų parama rajoną valdantis klanas nesunkiai išsaugos “status quo” ir greičiausiai tik dar labiau jį sutvirtins.
Ypač verta “kunigaikštukų” dėmesio bei paramos A. Kulakausko minima kombinacija: vienmandatės + daugiamandatė pagal K. Masiulio pasiūlytą Bloc Voting. Akivaizdu, kad Masiulio variante net mažiausią santykinę daugumą turinčios partijos visi kandidatai gali lengvai užimti visas pirmas vietas ir užsėsti visas kėdes. K. Masiulis net “patobulino” Bloc Voting sistemą, įvesdamas itin sadistišką reikalavimą, jog partija privalo kelti ne mažiau kaip 10 kandidatų – aiškus noras maksimaliai išskaidyti mažesnių partijų kandidatų balsus.
K. Masiulio pasiūlymas pernelyg tiesmukiškai veda į vienpartinę sistemą rajonuose. Nelabai patogu ir prieš ES kolegas… A. Kulakausko kombinacija palieka šiokią tokią demokratijos regimybę – antrosios pagal įtaką rajone partijos kandidatai gali tikėtis vieno kito paguodos prizo vienmandatėse.
Kulakausko pasiūlymas gali tapti puikia išeitimi stambioms partijoms, susikūrusias “savuose” rajonuose beveik feodalines kunigaikštijas. Pasiūlymas pusę mandatų dalintis tik tarp partijų, be jokios konkurencijos iš piliečių pusės, joms tikrai patiks. Stambioms partijoms patiks ir mintis perpus sumažinti daugiamandatės apygardos dydį mandatais – perpus padidėjusi vienam mandatui reikalinga kvota padės sumenkinti smulkių ir vidutinių partijų šansus.
Na, o tikriausia palaima jų laukia vienmandatėse apygardose – tai tiesiog rojus stambioms partijoms. Politologiją dėstantis A. Kulakauskas neabejotinai žino Duvergerio dėsnį – vienmandatės apygardos veda į dvipartinę sistemą. Laimėjimui būtina kvota 50% +1 įveikiama tik patiems stipriausiems politiniams dariniams. Su vietinių administracinių resursų parama rajoną valdantis klanas nesunkiai išsaugos “status quo” ir greičiausiai tik dar labiau jį sutvirtins.
Ypač verta “kunigaikštukų” dėmesio bei paramos A. Kulakausko minima kombinacija: vienmandatės + daugiamandatė pagal K. Masiulio pasiūlytą Bloc Voting. Akivaizdu, kad Masiulio variante net mažiausią santykinę daugumą turinčios partijos visi kandidatai gali lengvai užimti visas pirmas vietas ir užsėsti visas kėdes. K. Masiulis net “patobulino” Bloc Voting sistemą, įvesdamas itin sadistišką reikalavimą, jog partija privalo kelti ne mažiau kaip 10 kandidatų – aiškus noras maksimaliai išskaidyti mažesnių partijų kandidatų balsus.
K. Masiulio pasiūlymas pernelyg tiesmukiškai veda į vienpartinę sistemą rajonuose. Nelabai patogu ir prieš ES kolegas… A. Kulakausko kombinacija palieka šiokią tokią demokratijos regimybę – antrosios pagal įtaką rajone partijos kandidatai gali tikėtis vieno kito paguodos prizo vienmandatėse.
ir prieš 20 ir prieš 10 metų Lenkijoje korupcija nebuvo didesnė nei Lietuvoje. Ankščiau Lietuvoje jinai buvo labiau mylima ir giliau slėpiama: dabarir gudručiai pradeda suvokti jos trumpalaikią ir trapią naudą bei ilgalaikią ir tvarią žalą - todėl tyrėjų statistikoje ir pradėjo skleistis
Kad demokratija nebūtų tik renkamos valdžios savivaliavimas (1)