Originally posted by: hooked
Why shud they accept her word just coz she's a Sarpanch ? She is 'elected' right ? People have a right to demand reasons behind the actions of their elected representative.
I dont think that this is right -- just because she is elected, that people can over-rule her whenever they want. I agree that a democratic style of functioning where everyone has a voice can be more important than a bureaucratic style -- however, i think that there is still a protocol to follow.
These people elected her supposedly because they had trust in her.
Now, after electing her, they cannot be selective as to when they will listen to her or not. That is not in keeping with the leadership position she is in. The people cannot run a parallel government and justify it saying "democracy"
If they dont find her reasons compelling or her views reasonable, then there is still a protocol to follow which involves all of them coming together and asking her to step down.
Then, after she steps down, they can do whatever they want.
While she is still incumbent in the position, they cannot and should not over ride her instructions.
In any country, leaders are elected on the basis of democracy, but not everyone is elected by 100% majority.
Sometimes it is just 51-49 majority.
But once someone becomes President (by even just 51% vote -- not a landslide), that person is still the President.
It cannot be that the other 49% just say "we will do whatever we want to do. we didnt elect him -- we think he's a fool and doesnt know what he's doing"
Even the other 49% are bound to accept him as President and follow his decisions.
It is a matter of protocol not personal opinion.
I think she was right to resign. There is no point in being a decision maker if people are going to over ride your decisions.
Udne Ki Aasha
Cricket
