Politieke vakuum
Daar is ’n uitdrukking wat lui as die armoede by die voordeur inkom, loop die liefde by die agterdeur uit.
Hoewel dit op die huwelik betrekking het en verwys na die spanning wat finansiële druk op huwelikmaats se verhouding plaas, is dit ewe veel van toepassing op die verhouding tussen landsburgers en die regering.
Namibiërs kry swaar en baie ly honger.
Ná ses jaar van ekonomiese resessie en ’n verdieping van dié krisis deur die Covid-19-pandemie, is dit ’n daaglikse stryd vir mense om liggaam en siel aanmekaar te hou.
Dit is veral die jeug, van wie bykans 50 persent nie werk het nie, wat ontnugter en teleurgesteld is, en voel die regering faal die land en faal in sy taak om vir hulle ’n toekoms met geleenthede te skep.
Die oproer deur ondersteuners van NEFF en die AR is ’n simptoom hiervan.
Frederico Links van ACTION Coalition Namibia het vroeër die week gewaarsku die tafel is gedek vir waarskynlik meer sulke betogings en oproerigheid in die land.
Die politieke ontleder en navorser Christie Keulder sê jongmense voel hulle nie meer tuis in die ouer, gevestigde partye nie.
Die feit dat Swapo se binnepolitiek tans oorheers word deur die vraagstuk of die opvolgerskandidaat ’n man of ’n vrou moet wees, is tekenend van hoe verwyderd die party van voetsoolvlak-frustrasies is.
Jong Namibiërs is sat vir die trogvreters en die Swapo-apparatchiks.
’n Mens hoef net na die skrille kontras tussen die nuwe multimiljoendollar Swapo-hoofkwartier en die vervalle Katutura-staatshospitaal oorkant die pad te kyk, om te besef hóé verwyderd die party van die kieserskorps en hul nood is.
Die tyd van beloftes is verby. Namibiërs wil nou die oplossings sien.
SÓ SÊ ANDER
The Washington Post, 18 May 2022
The Supreme Court green-lights political corruption — again
The Supreme Court sided with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on Monday in the conservative majority’s latest assault on the laws meant to fight political corruption. Their decision will enable campaign donors to funnel money into candidates’ personal bank accounts, revealing stunning indifference to the corrosive effects this could have on how the nation is governed and public confidence in those doing the governing.
The court opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., concerns when and how candidates may be repaid for personal loans they make to their campaigns. Federal rules previously barred candidates from taking more than $250,000 in repayment from their campaigns if that money came from donations made after Election Day. The logic is obvious. “Political contributions that will line a candidate’s own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption,” Justice Elena Kagan explained in a dissent. “The candidate has a more-than-usual interest in obtaining the money (to replenish his personal finances), and is now in a position to give something in return. The donors well understand his situation, and are eager to take advantage of it. In short, everyone’s incentives are stacked to enhance the risk of dirty dealing.” If anything, the rules, permitting a quarter-million dollars in post-election repayments, were too weak.
Chief Justice Roberts dismissed such concerns, arguing that the regulations burden candidates funding their own campaigns and, therefore, their First Amendment rights. In fact, the rules that the court struck down limited the extent to which donors — not candidates — could help.
Monday’s ruling is another chapter in this sorry tale, the moral of which is: When big donors pick up the tab for a candidate, it is the public that usually pays.
Hoewel dit op die huwelik betrekking het en verwys na die spanning wat finansiële druk op huwelikmaats se verhouding plaas, is dit ewe veel van toepassing op die verhouding tussen landsburgers en die regering.
Namibiërs kry swaar en baie ly honger.
Ná ses jaar van ekonomiese resessie en ’n verdieping van dié krisis deur die Covid-19-pandemie, is dit ’n daaglikse stryd vir mense om liggaam en siel aanmekaar te hou.
Dit is veral die jeug, van wie bykans 50 persent nie werk het nie, wat ontnugter en teleurgesteld is, en voel die regering faal die land en faal in sy taak om vir hulle ’n toekoms met geleenthede te skep.
Die oproer deur ondersteuners van NEFF en die AR is ’n simptoom hiervan.
Frederico Links van ACTION Coalition Namibia het vroeër die week gewaarsku die tafel is gedek vir waarskynlik meer sulke betogings en oproerigheid in die land.
Die politieke ontleder en navorser Christie Keulder sê jongmense voel hulle nie meer tuis in die ouer, gevestigde partye nie.
Die feit dat Swapo se binnepolitiek tans oorheers word deur die vraagstuk of die opvolgerskandidaat ’n man of ’n vrou moet wees, is tekenend van hoe verwyderd die party van voetsoolvlak-frustrasies is.
Jong Namibiërs is sat vir die trogvreters en die Swapo-apparatchiks.
’n Mens hoef net na die skrille kontras tussen die nuwe multimiljoendollar Swapo-hoofkwartier en die vervalle Katutura-staatshospitaal oorkant die pad te kyk, om te besef hóé verwyderd die party van die kieserskorps en hul nood is.
Die tyd van beloftes is verby. Namibiërs wil nou die oplossings sien.
SÓ SÊ ANDER
The Washington Post, 18 May 2022
The Supreme Court green-lights political corruption — again
The Supreme Court sided with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on Monday in the conservative majority’s latest assault on the laws meant to fight political corruption. Their decision will enable campaign donors to funnel money into candidates’ personal bank accounts, revealing stunning indifference to the corrosive effects this could have on how the nation is governed and public confidence in those doing the governing.
The court opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., concerns when and how candidates may be repaid for personal loans they make to their campaigns. Federal rules previously barred candidates from taking more than $250,000 in repayment from their campaigns if that money came from donations made after Election Day. The logic is obvious. “Political contributions that will line a candidate’s own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption,” Justice Elena Kagan explained in a dissent. “The candidate has a more-than-usual interest in obtaining the money (to replenish his personal finances), and is now in a position to give something in return. The donors well understand his situation, and are eager to take advantage of it. In short, everyone’s incentives are stacked to enhance the risk of dirty dealing.” If anything, the rules, permitting a quarter-million dollars in post-election repayments, were too weak.
Chief Justice Roberts dismissed such concerns, arguing that the regulations burden candidates funding their own campaigns and, therefore, their First Amendment rights. In fact, the rules that the court struck down limited the extent to which donors — not candidates — could help.
Monday’s ruling is another chapter in this sorry tale, the moral of which is: When big donors pick up the tab for a candidate, it is the public that usually pays.
Kommentaar
Republikein
Geen kommentaar is op hierdie artikel gelaat nie