Last times, in 2008, some Strategists minimised Barack Obama’s candidacy, then Senator, because of the color of his skin and his very little popularity compared to heavyweight older and vets politicians that have been in place for more than half a century. Amazingly, those are the same people criticizing the longevity of President Mugabe in Zimbabwe. So was Colonel Gaddafi savagely eliminated on those same grounds of excessive longevity linked to dictatorship. What is bad for African leaders is apparently extremely appreciated for and by the MP’s and members of Congress in The West side. What would have been considered an abomination in some African places, thinks looking like Nepotism and tricks to come back in politics again and again living by and around politics only like a child breastfeeding, are the ultra chic in the West side.
In France we are getting interrogative about the lenght of public mandates so as to avoid the same people for too many years serving either like MP’s, Representants or Senators all their life long. We are asking ourselves if it is not time to put some limitations in this – either in age or on the numbers of times being reelected. In fact, increase of life expectancy is the new factor that obliges us to reconsider some of our political frameworks : some of them if not many are outdated. Before, 80 years was kind of frontier. Today, it is no longer the case. How to organise solidarity between generations, if we don’t renovate and clean the dust off ? This is probably the way for tomorrow’s democracy. Places of reforms. As I use to say, political reforms and institutionnal building are also economic reforms. They really have an impact on the kind of economy we are looking for and forward.
Another question is related to the notion of president’s spouses willing to race as president in their turn. This form of circumvening the law and the constitution that doesn’t allow more than two consecutives presidencies is a breach of democracy.
We are used to say : « all what is not forbidden should not be considered authorised ». Exploiting loopholes is not the best of exemplarity ever.
Those debates would come right on time. So far, as the likes of things and sounds announcing some sort of « crowning » before people are even presented with the candidacies for primaries on the Democrat’s side, equated to playing the game of institutions first so that the best institutionalised character is automatically designed as the winner-to-be : sacrilised before even competing. Would you call it fair competition ? Moreover, we still don’t know who are the contenders on the GOP’s side. Some fresh men are emerging over there and if they are keen enough to renew the GOP’s software, they could overturn the political table.
In 2008, Barack Obama was not the favorite neither inside his camp nor during the confrontation with Senator McCain. But he won. Easily. In 2012 Obama was able to survive thanks to the momentum of his presidency. In 2016, the game is widely open again. Really no one can tell today who is going to be the winner of Democrat’s primaries. To consider that there is a Super Queen who is going to be preferred to Vice President Joe Biden or to somebody else, during the 2016 Democrat’s primaries is premature. No proof of this anywhere. In 2008 ? That was 8 years ago.
Remember the Obama’s campaign 2012 slogan : « No turning Back » – « Forward ». Think of the implications of this before taking your bets.
« Words must mean something ». Who is the author of this sentence ? How much to you bet here ? Time for gambling is open. Place your bets. Rien ne va plus.
We wish and call for an open race and a fair competition, if this is not too much to ask to the Institutions.