be solved, if we had our president serve only one term in office?
What if our presidents served for seven years? The time is long enough to plan,execute,and deliver meaningful developmental projects. As we currently stand,we are effectively getting only three years from every president's first term.The last year is usually distracted by campaigning for reelection. It would also save us the cost of an election,although the cost component is not a crucial factor.
Furthermore,a single term would ensure that an incumbent does not use the resources of the state to prosecute a campaign!
As things stand now,it is not a fair contest,the president gets massive media exposure,every official function is a platform to campaign. While his functions are carried free of charge by the state owned media institutions,his opponents have to pay millions without even getting a percentage of the same thing. How fair can such a contest be?
I know someone would tell me the same thing happens in America,and Britain,but there are strict unbiased watchdogs monitoring campaign contributions over there.
With the level of debilitating poverty here,tell me which civil servant would jeopardize his job to censure his president? He must be either insane,or someone with a death wish. He would loose his job in a flash,before the memo he wrote on the matter gets to the presidential villa.
In addition to this,you have the awesome power of patronage the president wields. He has power to influence the award of oil blocs,he can singlehandedly influence the award of an airport project. forget about the lies they tell us on television that the federal executive council met,and awarded a contract. It is a big joke! The president does the major awards.All the others are high profile hungry yes men!
No comments:
Post a Comment