Quote:
Originally Posted by loubnaniTO  This is the stupidest 3erf i have ever heard. So what if someone loses in general elections. Bassil wasn't voted OUT... he got a LOT of votes, but got less than someone else. This doesn't mean he is a thief or a loser or he's not fit for the job!! We hardly see ministers who are qualified to run their ministries, is "popularity" the criteria to become a minister? or the technical qualifications?
What about those who didn't run in the elections. Murr hardly made it and his win is being contested, who said his son Elias would've won if he had run? Who said any of the non-MPs would've won if they run? This is ridiculous, this country is becoming more complicated by the day... |
I didn't want to tackle it from this angle, my aim was merely to pinpoint how ludicrous have some politicians turned.
However, I will state that being appointed as minister has nothing to do with popularity. A minister can even lose in his hometown and still be the most competent in the entire cabinet. The minister is supposed to represent a certain side and not himself, so whether he is more famous than Elvis Presley or a mere nobody it really means squat. The identity of the minister should not come into question when popularity enters the equation. when it does, we talk about the representation of the side which advocates this minister to hold a certain portfolio. The name of the candidate should lie solely in the hands of the side which nominated him. For instance, in Lebanon, currently FPM demands 5 ministers. No one has the right to put conditions on any name presented by this faction as long as the party is respecting its 5 men representation.
Now, globally, can someone give me one example of a minister in any government where he represents himself and not the side he/she represents? if you're not able to find one, what gives you then the right to judge the appointment of the individual based on elections? And since when was a minister supposed to represent the people's will? He (as an individual) is supposed to serve them, but not be the actual manifestation of their will. For example, the employee at the department of Vehicles (el nef3a in plain lebanese) is supposed to serve you, but not necessarily be the embodiment of the people's political line. In the West, no one dares criticize the appointment of any minister based on his popularity or whether he/she lost in elections or not. The criticism comes from one angle and one angle only, and it is competence in the appointed position and whether the person is fit for the task at hand or not. Anything other than that is dismissed right away. If we Lebanese look up to the West like we boast to, then we must also judge the appointment of the ministers based on this criterion. If that's the case, then there's no one more deserving of returning as minister than Bassil (just giving an example t prove a point...so plz don't turn the thread about him) since his ministry proved to be the best functioning out of all.
PS: Sorry for the linguistic mistakes in the opening post, I wrote it in a hurry.
The so called 3orf of not appointing election losers as ministers -
27th September 2009
