One-party state system• A position Cornelius Okan-Adjetey
There is a great difference between a one-party state and a communist state! Note!
Advertisement
Is a one party state system not more ideal compared to what we have now?
Why is it politically incorrect to discuss this matter? Are we programmed to think in a certain direction only?
People are elected on individual basis and consequently come together as one political party. They represent their people after being elected as independent candidates, hence giving Parliament more divergent views.
Presently, there are only about two or three representation and views in Parliament instead of more than 200.
One Party
Under a one-party state system, you would have more than 200 views–a better way to come out with the best decisions without much influence or fear of opposing your party's position or decision.
The work of most opposition parties in the world, especially Africa, is just to prevent the ruling party from winning the heart of the people so they are not re-elected.....under a one-party state system, one people, one nation, opposition will be more healthy when it comes from within the same party (nation-one party)....
I believe much power should be given to Parliament as defined above than the President, so that he is not corrupted by the powers he has.
Other Trending Stories
A country must have one agenda and such an agenda should be designed collectively by all....the ruling party in most cases is in the majority and will always have its way anyway to suit its own selfish interest.
The minority does not have much influence as we are made to believe, since majority votes carry the day in the House. This divisive system called multiparty democracy is evil and kills the spirit of love and unity. It dangerously impedes development, giving less time to strategic planning....four years is definitely not a time meant for any serious national development.
This fanfare/games called election must be cut down. After all, opinions cannot just be two or three .......there are millions and billions of opinions depending on a country's population.
I am shocked at the cost of elections; millions of cedis.....the "created" opposition spends so much to be elected and when they are elected, they use at least their first two years to recoup their investments and all they have to do is embark on short-term projects for election purposes only (cosmetic projects that will only inspire voters).
Nothing sustainable can be achieved. They must ensure that they amass enough wealth for themselves and for their party. The next two years of their tenure is used in achieving the above objectives.
There is never enough time to think about the people and real sustainable development.
Under a one-party state system, only the parliamentarians are elected and they elect the leader under very strict criteria. ....not just anyone should be president ...in any case he doesn't necessarily have to be called the President.
Can you imagine how much will be saved from spending when we forgo unnecessary elections?
The leader can easily be impeached if Parliament finds him incompetent.
If good governance is not about the progress, unity and development of a nation and it is merely about changing leaders, then what is the point? Are we here to play? Who can win?