Tajikistan votes to allow president to rule indefinitely - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Voters in Tajikistan have overwhelmingly endorsed changes to its constitution allowing the president, Emomali Rahmon, to run for an unlimited number of terms. In a statement, the central election commission said 94.5% of votes cast in Sunday’s referendum had backed the 40 constitutional changes, while only 3.3% were against. Turnout in the former Soviet central Asian country was 92%, or just over 4 million people, the CEC said. As well as lifting the term limit for Rahmon, the amendments also lower the minimum age for presidential candidates from 35 to 30, and ban the formation of parties based on religion. The 63-year-old autocrat has ruled Tajikistan for nearly a quarter of a century, demonstrating what critics say is an increased disregard for religious freedoms, civil society and political pluralism in recent years. But residents voting on Sunday in Dushanbe, the country’s capital and home to nearly a million people, appeared enthusiastic in their support for Rahmon, who led the country out of a five-year civil war that began in 1992, less than a year after independence. “Rahmon brought us peace, he ended the war, and he should rule the country for as long as he has the strength to,” voter Nazir Saidzoda, 53, told AFP on Sunday. The term limit amendment applies only to Rahmon, owing to the “Leader of the Nation” status parliament voted to grant him last year, which also affords him and his family permanent immunity from prosecution.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/tajikistan-votes-to-allow-president-emomali-rahmon-to-rule-indefinitely[/url]

[QUOTE=Griffster26;50382967]The term limit amendment applies only to Rahmon, owing to the “Leader of the Nation” status parliament voted to grant him last year, which also affords [B]him and his family permanent immunity from prosecution.[/B][/QUOTE] + Indefinite rule = What could possibly go wrong?

Tajikstan takes measures to boldly thrust itself into the progressive year of 216

Just crown him a monarch instead why dont ya

[QUOTE]the central election commission said 94.5% of votes cast in Sunday’s referendum had backed the 40 constitutional changes, while only 3.3% were against. [/QUOTE] [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYCojl7IEAAkvWG.jpg[/t]

Why even bother having an election?

You know, if you're going to such a degree, why not just rename the country to "Kingdom of Tajikistan" and be done with all the pretenses? I've got a feeling that nobody will really feel a difference.

Wow great idea! :goodjob:

Just being able to run as much as he likes alone doesn't seem as big a deal considering thats how the US was for the majority of its lifespan. Certainly better that its voted for and not just automatically making him leader for life Him and his whole family being above the law, however, is playing with fire

Now [B]this[/B] is what the UN should be regulating and taking care of.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50383113][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYCojl7IEAAkvWG.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] did that really affect the results that much? i think it would've happened either way

[QUOTE=orgornot;50383569]Now [B]this[/B] is what the UN should be regulating and taking care of.[/QUOTE] You mean "taking care of" countries' sovereignty over [I]their fucking leader?[/I] Yeah, good idea, I'm sure no one would take any issue at all with the UN telling a country "no we don't like how you like your leader, find someone else kthanks"

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50383066]+ Indefinite rule = What could possibly go wrong?[/QUOTE] Quite recently the US still had indefinite rule for president, but most didn't want to stay in for their entire lives so they changed it in 1940's.

[quote] In a statement, the central election commission said 94.5% of votes cast in Sunday’s referendum had backed the 40 constitutional changes, while only 3.3% were against. Turnout in the former Soviet central Asian country was 92%, or just over 4 million people, the CEC said. [/quote] Nothing suspicious about that [editline]24th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sims_doc;50383668]Quite recently the US still had indefinite rule for president, but most didn't want to stay in for their entire lives so they changed it in 1940's.[/QUOTE] It was changed because FDR was elected 4 times in a row Granted it was World War II, so things were very chaotic and FDR seemed the best to lead

[QUOTE=Sims_doc;50383668]Quite recently the US still had indefinite rule for president, but most didn't want to stay in for their entire lives so they changed it in 1940's.[/QUOTE] The UK has unlimited term lengths for Prime Minister. [editline]24th May 2016[/editline] Granted, the system works differently. but the point still stands. However, I think term limits are essential for developing countries.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;50383593]You mean "taking care of" countries' sovereignty over [I]their fucking leader?[/I] Yeah, good idea, I'm sure no one would take any issue at all with the UN telling a country "no we don't like how you like your leader, find someone else kthanks"[/QUOTE] More like not allowing dictatorships to form.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50383715]More like not allowing dictatorships to form.[/QUOTE] If people are showing such overwhelming support for a ruler that they want to keep him, thats their choice. Don't like it? Tough tits, imperialist. Its their election, not yours, stop trying to impose your rule over them.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;50383744]If people are showing such overwhelming support for a ruler that they want to keep him, thats their choice. Don't like it? Tough tits, imperialist. Its their election, not yours, stop trying to impose your rule over them.[/QUOTE] 92% turnout in a population of 4 million is suspicious to me, especially with 94.5% voting yes

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50383758]92% turnout in a population of 4 million is suspicious to me, especially with 94.5% voting yes[/QUOTE] Indeed, but there are reporters present and they seem to agree that the civilian population has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic about it. We can tell when people are just too afraid to say anything but yes. And looking at the effects this guy's leadership has had on the country it's not that big a stretch to say people just like having him in office.

Uh Population • 2015 estimate 8,610,000 "Just over 4 Million" 92% Turnout. .... Something doesn't add up here. Unless they have 4 Million minors??

[QUOTE=Bazsil;50383765]Indeed, but there are reporters present and they seem to agree that the civilian population has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic about it. We can tell when people are just too afraid to say anything but yes. And looking at the effects this guy's leadership has had on the country it's not that big a stretch to say people just like having him in office.[/QUOTE] What is propaganda? I'll admit that I know nothing about the country or its president, but the results are too large for a dangerous amendment to be legitimate. There are red flags everywhere.

[QUOTE=Richoxen;50383777]Uh Population • 2015 estimate 8,610,000 "Just over 4 Million" 92% Turnout. .... Something doesn't add up here. Unless they have 4 Million minors??[/QUOTE] Tajikistan does have a very young population, but I don't think its [I]that [/I]young. [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50383797]What is propaganda? I'll admit that I know nothing about the country or its president, but the results are too large for a dangerous amendment to be legitimate. There are red flags everywhere.[/QUOTE] There is no free press really. Public criticism of the regime isn't allowed and any attempt to report on protests or demonstrations is suppressed (and journalists aren't generally allowed to cover things the regime doesn't like). They also block a number of websites. Rahmon is a corrupt dictator who does the old fascist trick of fudging numbers to make it look like he knows what he's doing

[quote]The term limit amendment applies only to Rahmon, owing to the “Leader of the Nation” status parliament voted to grant him last year, which also affords him and his family permanent immunity from prosecution.[/quote] so some family member of his could go out in public, kill somebody, and get away with it?

[QUOTE=uitham;50383579]did that really affect the results that much? i think it would've happened either way[/QUOTE] It had to have an effect to some degree, but it mostly shows that the system was biased, as it probably is in this case too.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50383701]The UK has unlimited term lengths for Prime Minister. [editline]24th May 2016[/editline] Granted, the system works differently. but the point still stands. However, I think term limits are essential for developing countries.[/QUOTE] Thats the downside to a parliamentary system, if one party gains a majority consistently, they can keep everyone the same In America it's a lot harder to retain a majority in all the government for more than 4 years

Tajikistan is not a shining example of democracy to begin with, this isn't really that surprising.

[QUOTE=Richoxen;50383777]Uh Population • 2015 estimate 8,610,000 "Just over 4 Million" 92% Turnout. .... Something doesn't add up here. Unless they have 4 Million minors??[/QUOTE] According to Wikipedia in 2013, 3.6 million of the population was under 19.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50383569]Now [B]this[/B] is what the UN should be regulating and taking care of.[/QUOTE] To have a global international body looking out for creeping authoritarianism would be great, but the UN isn't meant to do that - the word 'democracy' doesn't appear in [url=http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/index.html]the UN Charter[/url], and the primary stated purpose of the UN is to prevent a third world war

[QUOTE=Sableye;50384412]Thats the downside to a parliamentary system, if one party gains a majority consistently, they can keep everyone the same In America it's a lot harder to retain a majority in all the government for more than 4 years[/QUOTE] The thing is in practise that's so unlikely to happen that it just hasn't come up. British democracy is based so heavily on convention and mutual understanding that to evaluate it based on what's been written down isn't going to represent how things are actually done. The Prime Minister is theoretically a very powerful person; there's not a great deal of separation in the branches of government, but if a prime minister began disregarding parliamentary convention (by, for example, remaining in office despite a tiny majority in a vote of no confidence) they would be removed from their party and ousted (as Mrs Thatcher was).

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50385617]The thing is in practise that's so unlikely to happen that it just hasn't come up. British democracy is based so heavily on convention and mutual understanding that to evaluate it based on what's been written down isn't going to represent how things are actually done. The Prime Minister is theoretically a very powerful person; there's not a great deal of separation in the branches of government, but if a prime minister began disregarding parliamentary convention (by, for example, remaining in office despite a tiny majority in a vote of no confidence) they would be removed from their party and ousted (as Mrs Thatcher was).[/QUOTE] Well, this is the interesting point: it depends on the democratic culture of a country the extent to which this happens. Francis Fukuyama in [I]The End of History and the Last Man[/I] remarked that although Japan had democratic institutions, it had only partially acquired liberal-democratic values. When he published the book, a single party, the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) had ruled Japan, fully democratically, for all but a couple of years in the post-war period. They are in power today, after only a few other years out of power and remain completely dominant, with grand coalitions having to be formed for a proper opposition to emerge. In other words, in an established democracy, with strong liberal democratic norms, I firmly favour a parliamentary system and an uncodified constitution. In countries which haven't had an organic development towards their democracy, I would favour a codified constitution and presidential government (and proper separation of powers).