What we mean as 'Political Reform' in our political party.

[PoorFan]

I think it's time we talk on what exactly it mean by 'political reform'. According to most news paper both BNP & BAL is showing interest on 'political reform' in their party. But so far seems to me, the meaning of 'political reform' is no where near to my [peoples] expectation. For example, one BAL leader expressed his mind on a party chief or executive leader should resign from the post when he enjoy constitutional post of the country. He also suggested no one should become country chief more than twice. These are very reasonable and well established democracy culture all over the world to decentralize power, autocracy, nepotism etc., but surprisingly the reaction from BAL party itself was negative, and some of them even took it as conspiracy towards the party. Recently BAL leaders started to say, they have long history in politics, and 'political reform' is always is in 'practice' saying how they become 'Muslim Awami league' to 'Bangladesh Awami league' etc.! And as they claim, coming 'political reform' is nothing new, and will be done for their own interest since 'political reform' is a ongoing process of their party.

On the other hand, BNP also saying the same on 'political reform', but no sign of decentralize power, autocracy, nepotism in the party. And recent move on Syed Eskandar says otherwise. For last 15 years they had no governing body meeting, and none of their executive got elected by due process but autocracy and nepotism, and yet at this crucial moment practicing same culture. Both BNP and BAL seems to have common standing on 'political reform' in their party, but I seriously doubt anything beyond dumping few faces, mostly who lack so called loyalty and perhaps few unavoidable corrupted.

Some of them even shows bold confidence not to accept any advice or suggestion for that matter from EC or other corner of society, rather demanding for leave it on them. Now the question rise, what exactly they mean by 'political reform' that they are willing to make? or in their mind?? How close it would be to peoples expectation even if they give it a try? How effective it would be in term of 'implementation' and 'outcome' given their long history of fail or never tried?

So far political parties are not disclosing their idea on 'political reform' in their party, nor commenting on ( proposed ) EC new rules officially, since there is ban on political discussion at this moment. However I am pretty much sure, they will try their best to make every effort controversial and ineffective once they get in to business ( after the withdraw of ban, dialog with EC etc. ), I will be more than happy if I proved wrong.

Anyway I am not an expert on 'political reform' but as an average citizen of Bangladesh, I wish to see those steps bellow has been taken as 'political reform' in every political party.

1. Transparency in selection process of executives and Election nomination ( reduce autocracy, nepotism, black money )
2. Transparency in income / expenditure of party as well as executives
3. Ban on political activity of any public service holder, such as bureaucrat, judge, army, police, teachers, etc., and yes students too since they are enjoying govt. financial assistance one way or another. Surely all of above can vote any party in election, but not other political activity while is in service, not until retirement or graduation.
4. Take action ( some sort ) on against proven corrupted as well as alleged corrupted by EC and ACC ( YES, not until proven innocent ).
5. Fix the term of MP, Minister, for example not more than twice or something.
6. Establish the culture of accountability to the people in case of failure( open letter etc. ).

There must be more and more realistic way of reform to those who has vast knowledge in politics and it will be my / our pleasure to share every thoughts on this regard. I hope we can have maximum reform this crucial time in our political history and can live as a stable prosperous country coming days.

[Special 1]

It is very hard for these political parties to undertake these reforms.
Bangladeshis in general tend to take things very personally. Even if some person brings the topic within party meetings it would be considered as an insult.
Secondly, the two ladies are big obstacles. You can be less charitable and say that they are power hungry women and hence they do not want to relinquish power. Or you can be charitable and argue that because of the killings that occured in their families, they are afraid and do not want to relinquish power.

With regards to some of the reforms you mentioned.
1) I do not see a problem with nepotism as long as the person has some sort of capabilities to run for office. But yes black money should be taken out of election process.
2) Yes that should be the case.
3) I dont agree with you copletely. Using political banners to practice politics could be banned, but not politics in general.
4)I agree
5) I do not think this is viable, because experience is valuable in politics and running country. So, in one sense you are addressing corruption through accountablilty, but not looking at the cost.
6) We have to make our courts system stronger to adress accountability. Give people more power in terms of bringing in lawsuits. Creating formal lobby orgs could be an option as it will give stake holders stronger standing against politicians.

You can think of lots of stufff. I hope this does not degenerate into one of those horrible posts.

[PoorFan]

Originally Posted by Special 1
It is very hard for these political parties to undertake these reforms.
Bangladeshis in general tend to take things very personally. Even if some person brings the topic within party meetings it would be considered as an insult.

Very true, and thanks for your comment.

Secondly, the two ladies are big obstacles. You can be less charitable and say that they are power hungry women and hence they do not want to relinquish power. Or you can be charitable and argue that because of the killings that occured in their families, they are afraid and do not want to relinquish power.

Yeah big obstacle, and to me it is a universal truth one way or another.

1) I do not see a problem with nepotism as long as the person has some sort of capabilities to run for office. But yes black money should be taken out of election process.

Nepotism is problem when ones 'capability' has not judged through due process like any other individual. For example, both lady got the charge of their party was PLAIN nepotism, there was no due or reliable judgment of capability or anything. We might have totally different political situation / culture now IF both party went through due process to select their leaders THAT time, and till now. If they ( both lady ) had 5 to 10 years office or field work before taking charge on hand of the party, they might have done way better than they did I believe.

3) I dont agree with you copletely. Using political banners to practice politics could be banned, but not politics in general.

Using political banners or not is a TRAP, and always will be controversial. In fact it's not working even now! for example 'white', 'blue', 'pink' teachers panel of Dhaka University or politically grouped lawyers are there we can see. These people are not using political banner literally, but the damage is significant and undeniable. So we need something more effective and error free idea for this matter.

What is that it you think 'politics in general'? If it means some kind of activity like union, committee or sort, to address their needs and demand towards organization, then we should not call or define it as politics (IMO). And for that purpose there is no need to go through huge election process either, which ultimately lead to grouping, lobbying, muscle power, money power, violence and corruption at the end. Why not select more simple way so that anyone can be selected, like lottery among them those who voluntarily willing to provide that service ( for each position of the committee ). These are not huge technical specialist job, nor need huge popularity, charisma,, that any other person of that institute or community can not be able to provide same ( more or less ) service. So why need to consider and practice it as 'political activity'?

5) I do not think this is viable, because experience is valuable in politics and running country. So, in one sense you are addressing corruption through accountablilty, but not looking at the cost.

Yes experience is valuable in every other case too, and I am not suggesting to grave it either, though I made a mistake by writing 'MP' which I meant 'PM'. After finishing two term of 'PM' or minister, that person definitely can remain as MP, as well as in the party. So obviously his / her experience will not go in vain, rather within his / her limited term,, he / she would concentrate and do best for own / party reputation. Holding power for unlimited time is more harmful than the advantage of experience, and it's proven historically all over the world I think.

6) We have to make our courts system stronger to adress accountability. Give people more power in terms of bringing in lawsuits. Creating formal lobby orgs could be an option as it will give stake holders stronger standing against politicians.

You have rightly focused on responsibility of public institution ( court system ), and I focused on the responsibility of party itself, that is,, some kind of mandatory system in their own resolution, such as yearly ( as well as time to time ) announcement to people their plan, activity, action on issues, outcome, review etc. by written report / letter, not just talking someone of the party in front of few jurnalist which has almost ZERO accountibility. This kind of report will ensure both side ( public and party itself ) check & accountability. Since they are representing mass people, they owe people their ( parties ) own accountability system.

[Special 1]

I think Hasina and Khaleda did come to limelight in the eighties not only because of nepotism. being a part of a charismatic family helps and they did a good job politically to achieve whatever they achieved. But that was the orde of the day then, but as you point it out, it is not the case now. People are very critical of the achievements these two ladies, they brand them as a lot of things, but on the grand scheme of things given theibackgound they have done a lot of great things.

Regarding point number three, i guess our definations of politics are a little different, but i do agree with what you have to say. As long as political affiliations does not affect the formal instititions i do not see a problem. But it is hard. Grouping within organizations is always bad.

Regading five. The 2-3 term for pM seems fair, but i do not agree with your stance on ministers for the same reasons as i pointed out. Also, if you are given legal immunity afteryour term finishes then wouldnt you wanna practice more corruption?
I do not know about having power over unlimited number of years and it being harmful, maybe it is true maybe not.

With regards to six. I think both BNP and BAL do it informally. it is not in their interest to public with these things for stratigical reasons. but yeah it would be great if they would do it publicly, but i doubt it is going to happen and i feel it is not a necessay thing.

One comment I would like to make, is BAL since 2001 have been looking into reforms within itself and have taken meaningful steps towards making reforms. BNP has not been doing as much.

[PoorFan]

being a part of a charismatic family helps and they did a good job politically to achieve whatever they achieved.

What exactly they did as a 'good job politically' to achieve party leadership?

But that was the orde of the day then, but as you point it out, it is not the case now.

Was it norm of the day then? or those parties took a wrong backward step? I thought even Zia or AL in Paki era didn't practice this wrong nepotism way ( selecting process )!

but on the grand scheme of things given theibackgound they have done a lot of great things.

Such as?? If they have done great things as LEADER, why we are facing huge political crisis now? why corruption is every where? why even their family members or party men become corrupted in front of their nose? why every public administration become almost nonfunctional? Please name specifically some of their 'great things' of their leadership "on the grand scheme of things" or whatever. If there are some, WAS THOSE unachievable under other people's leadership?

As long as political affiliations does not affect the formal instititions i do not see a problem. But it is hard. Grouping within organizations is always bad.

Here again, please name some of those institution that HAS NOT affected by political affiliations. If the reality was otherwise I would not bother to point it out or question you again. Yes IT IS hard and 'grouping within organizations' is always bad as you said, but it is hurting us REAL BAD hence need to fix & think.

Also, if you are given legal immunity afteryour term finishes then wouldnt you wanna practice more corruption?

Giving legal immunity?? May be my comment was bit confusing, I said "After finishing two term of 'PM' or minister, that person definitely can remain as MP, as well as in the party." but that doesn't mean without election or due selection process in the party.

it is not in their interest to public with these things for stratigical reasons.

Yeah surely 'for strategical reasons'! And the first and most strategical reason is being unaccountable to people or anyone. Any time, any thing they needs to do is ALL for PEOPLE's interest, but not ensuring accountability system on their own towards people ... become a joke since they are representing mass people. And I really think it's necessary, some people may not agree though.

One comment I would like to make, is BAL since 2001 have been looking into reforms within itself and have taken meaningful steps towards making reforms. BNP has not been doing as much.

Yes BAL may be leading a head in the race, but we are still in dark especially what reform Hasina BAL are looking for in their own party, and how effective it would be. And Khaleda BNP seems still in her wild dream.

[Tigers_eye]

One can not take out nepotism out of a person's character. It was there from the beginning of time and will stay before the last day comes. So, political reform should not even try to address that. Instead the transparency issue that is being discussed should get priority.

dui poisa.

[PoorFan]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
One can not take out nepotism out of a person's character. It was there from the beginning of time and will stay before the last day comes. So, political reform should not even try to address that. Instead the transparency issue that is being discussed should get priority.

dui poisa.

Hmmm can not agree basically. There are lots of weakness in human being and it's life, but that doesn't mean people should give up. That's why people has invented rules and regulation system instead.

Thanks for 'dui poisa'.

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by PoorFan
What exactly they did as a 'good job politically' to achieve party leadership?


Was it norm of the day then? or those parties took a wrong backward step? I thought even Zia or AL in Paki era didn't practice this wrong nepotism way ( selecting process )!


Such as?? If they have done great things as LEADER, why we are facing huge political crisis now? why corruption is every where? why even their family members or party men become corrupted in front of their nose? why every public administration become almost nonfunctional? Please name specifically some of their 'great things' of their leadership "on the grand scheme of things" or whatever. If there are some, WAS THOSE unachievable under other people's leadership?


Here again, please name some of those institution that HAS NOT affected by political affiliations. If the reality was otherwise I would not bother to point it out or question you again. Yes IT IS hard and 'grouping within organizations' is always bad as you said, but it is hurting us REAL BAD hence need to fix & think.


Giving legal immunity?? May be my comment was bit confusing, I said "After finishing two term of 'PM' or minister, that person definitely can remain as MP, as well as in the party." but that doesn't mean without election or due selection process in the party.


Yeah surely 'for strategical reasons'! And the first and most strategical reason is being unaccountable to people or anyone. Any time, any thing they needs to do is ALL for PEOPLE's interest, but not ensuring accountability system on their own towards people ... become a joke since they are representing mass people. And I really think it's necessary, some people may not agree though.


Yes BAL may be leading a head in the race, but we are still in dark especially what reform Hasina BAL are looking for in their own party, and how effective it would be. And Khaleda BNP seems still in her wild dream.

What they did politically? : They jumpstarted their parties and brought them back to limelight. Both BAL and BNP were in dissarey after deaths of mujib and zia. And mind you these are women we are talking about. How many women in Bangladesh were even successful at that point in holding a job, let alone leading parties. They successfully did what were asked of them during the eighties, if they did not BAL and BNP would not have existed now. The mere fact that these ladies, in the eighties, took party leadership shows their courage, especially after their families were killed because of political reasons. IF THEY WERE NOT GOOD POLITICIANS THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN PARTY HEAD POSITIONS FOR SO LONG!

With regards to some great things they did? Who brought democracy to this country?
I think both of them were the key figures. And you ask whether some one else could have achieved great things these leaders were there. I can ask the same thing, would things be different if instead of them some one else were there? Who knows, maybe. Maybe not.

With regards to grouping in organizations. I said that I agree with your point but my defination of politics is different from yours.

With regards to PM, and minister: I do not see why some one should be limited to serve two times as a minister. It is a arbitrary claim that corruption will reduce if you stay PM or minister for 2 times.
Why would some one wanna be an MP after being the prime minister. Its like playing 2nd division league after winning the world cup. I do not see your point. If you have to institute your system, you will have to provide legal immunity to PMS and ministers. Or else they will not work for the best interest of their country. They will just be by the books and being by the books would just stagnate decision making.

Strategical reasons: If i were a political party, why would I give out every single thing about what is going on in my party? If there is a power struggle, why would sum1 publicize it? It would just be stupid. Accountabily only means that after 5 years you have the right to choose your representative! Its horrible, but that is reality.

Both these parties will act in their best interest. you as a citizen have the right to vote, if you do not like them vote for some one else. If you think their actions are causing public losses, go to the courts. Thats the recourse we have!

[shaad]

Special 1, there are a few points which I might interpret a little differently:

Originally Posted by Special 1
What they did politically? : They jumpstarted their parties and brought them back to limelight. Both BAL and BNP were in dissarey after deaths of mujib and zia. And mind you these are women we are talking about. How many women in Bangladesh were even successful at that point in holding a job, let alone leading parties. They successfully did what were asked of them during the eighties, if they did not BAL and BNP would not have existed now. The mere fact that these ladies, in the eighties, took party leadership shows their courage, especially after their families were killed because of political reasons. IF THEY WERE NOT GOOD POLITICIANS THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN PARTY HEAD POSITIONS FOR SO LONG!

The implied assumption here is that these two women actively initiated the process of jumpstarting their parties. I think this is incorrect. While AL in 1971 and earlier had garnered support because of their platform, post-1971 it had become essentially a personality cult, a party people supported (not that that was really necessary when all opposition parties were banned) solely because of the charisma of Mujib. BNP too was a party people voted for simply because of the personal popularity of Zia.

Now, after the deaths of both Mujib and Zia, both parties were in disarray because neither of them had clearly articulated platforms which were trusted by the voting public. What they both needed were figureheads, individuals "leading" them which would inspire the same sort of blind support that Mujib and Zia had. Malik, Mizan and Badruddoza, for example, would not have been successful in this position; given that our voting populace tended to vote more with their hearts than with their heads, what was needed were persons with direct connections to Mujib and Zia, close relatives, which in this case turned out to be Hasina and Khaleda. So given that the rank and file of the two parties had tasted power, enjoyed it, and wanted it again, they co-opted these women as "leaders". Now, once they were in position as "leaders" of the respective parties, they grew autocratic, and consolidated that position. And who, after all, could gainsay them? For without them as figureheads/leaders, individuals who could be associated with the popular memories of Mujib and Zia, neither party had any chance of coming back to power.

You make a point of the fact that these were women who were leading parties. Now, I'll admit to being a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, but I think their gender was irrelevant. Simply put, no son of Mujib was alive, and Tariq and Arafat were, at this stage, too young to be anointed as party heads.

You say "IF THEY WERE NOT GOOD POLITICIANS THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN PARTY HEAD POSITIONS FOR SO LONG!" My interpretation is that the parties did not have a choice: if they did not keep these women as party heads, the popularity of Mujib and Zia could not have been channeled to bring these parties back into power.

I do not think my interpretation lends much credit to Hasina or Khaleda. I believe the decision to make them party heads was a self-serving one made by the nominal party chiefs, not one for which Hasina and Khalida actively went out and campaigned.

With regards to some great things they did? Who brought democracy to this country?
I think both of them were the key figures. And you ask whether some one else could have achieved great things these leaders were there. I can ask the same thing, would things be different if instead of them some one else were there? Who knows, maybe. Maybe not.

I think AL in 1971 and earlier laid the seeds of democracy by being a credible rival to the Muslim League. Sadly, Mujib undid the benefits of this by creating BAKSAL and outlawing all other parties, essentially creating a one-man/one-party dictatorship, from 1973 to 1975. While Zia created BNP to lend a semblance of representative government to what was essentially another dictatorial regime, BNP was successful in becoming a credible rival to AL. So, I would argue that the creation of AL and BNP were also seminal events in the bringing of democracy to our nation.

With regards to PM, and minister: I do not see why some one should be limited to serve two times as a minister. It is a arbitrary claim that corruption will reduce if you stay PM or minister for 2 times.
Why would some one wanna be an MP after being the prime minister. Its like playing 2nd division league after winning the world cup. I do not see your point. If you have to institute your system, you will have to provide legal immunity to PMS and ministers. Or else they will not work for the best interest of their country. They will just be by the books and being by the books would just stagnate decision making.

Note that in the US, after FDR had been elected for three terms as president, they decided to limit the terms one can serve as president to just two. The rationale is that the opportunity to "game" the system, i.e. intentionally bias the system to favour oneself, one's interests, or one's party, increases with the amount of time one spends in a position of authority. For examples in the US, note the choice of Supreme Court justices to favour one party's platforms (and even voting results as in the Florida recount), redistricting of voting precincts to favour the party in power in Congress in the next election, the Bush administration's firings of federal prosecutors who were deemed not biased enough towards Republicans, etc.

I also disagree with providing legal immunity to PMs and ministers. I think it is perfectly possible to make good decisions, good strategic and political decisions, without doing anything illegal. People who claim that they will be handicapped without being provided legal immunity are either incompetent or have something to hide, and I would not trust them even an inch in any position of governance or legislation.

Both these parties will act in their best interest. you as a citizen have the right to vote, if you do not like them vote for some one else. If you think their actions are causing public losses, go to the courts. Thats the recourse we have!

Our judiciary is still not truly independent. Until they are, going to the courts is unlikely to be a successful recourse. In addition, someone more versed in Bangladeshi legal issues can enlighten us, but I was under the impression that the initial costs for civil tort cases in Bangladesh were exorbitantly high, and that was one of the reasons why we do not see too many civil suits being filed.

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by shaad
Special 1, there are a few points which I might interpret a little differently:

The implied assumption here is that these two women actively initiated the process of jumpstarting their parties. I think this is incorrect. While AL in 1971 and earlier had garnered support because of their platform, post-1971 it had become essentially a personality cult, a party people supported (not that that was really necessary when all opposition parties were banned) solely because of the charisma of Mujib. BNP too was a party people voted for simply because of the personal popularity of Zia.

Now, after the deaths of both Mujib and Zia, both parties were in disarray because neither of them had clearly articulated platforms which were trusted by the voting public. What they both needed were figureheads, individuals "leading" them which would inspire the same sort of blind support that Mujib and Zia had. Malik, Mizan and Badruddoza, for example, would not have been successful in this position; given that our voting populace tended to vote more with their hearts than with their heads, what was needed were persons with direct connections to Mujib and Zia, close relatives, which in this case turned out to be Hasina and Khaleda. So given that the rank and file of the two parties had tasted power, enjoyed it, and wanted it again, they co-opted these women as "leaders". Now, once they were in position as "leaders" of the respective parties, they grew autocratic, and consolidated that position. And who, after all, could gainsay them? For without them as figureheads/leaders, individuals who could be associated with the popular memories of Mujib and Zia, neither party had any chance of coming back to power.

You make a point of the fact that these were women who were leading parties. Now, I'll admit to being a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, but I think their gender was irrelevant. Simply put, no son of Mujib was alive, and Tariq and Arafat were, at this stage, too young to be anointed as party heads.

You say "IF THEY WERE NOT GOOD POLITICIANS THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN PARTY HEAD POSITIONS FOR SO LONG!" My interpretation is that the parties did not have a choice: if they did not keep these women as party heads, the popularity of Mujib and Zia could not have been channeled to bring these parties back into power.

I do not think my interpretation lends much credit to Hasina or Khaleda. I believe the decision to make them party heads was a self-serving one made by the nominal party chiefs, not one for which Hasina and Khalida actively went out and campaigned.

I think AL in 1971 and earlier laid the seeds of democracy by being a credible rival to the Muslim League. Sadly, Mujib undid the benefits of this by creating BAKSAL and outlawing all other parties, essentially creating a one-man/one-party dictatorship, from 1973 to 1975. While Zia created BNP to lend a semblance of representative government to what was essentially another dictatorial regime, BNP was successful in becoming a credible rival to AL. So, I would argue that the creation of AL and BNP were also seminal events in the bringing of democracy to our nation.

Note that in the US, after FDR had been elected for three terms as president, they decided to limit the terms one can serve as president to just two. The rationale is that the opportunity to "game" the system, i.e. intentionally bias the system to favour oneself, one's interests, or one's party, increases with the amount of time one spends in a position of authority. For examples in the US, note the choice of Supreme Court justices to favour one party's platforms (and even voting results as in the Florida recount), redistricting of voting precincts to favour the party in power in Congress in the next election, the Bush administration's firings of federal prosecutors who were deemed not biased enough towards Republicans, etc.

I also disagree with providing legal immunity to PMs and ministers. I think it is perfectly possible to make good decisions, good strategic and political decisions, without doing anything illegal. People who claim that they will be handicapped without being provided legal immunity are either incompetent or have something to hide, and I would not trust them even an inch in any position of governance or legislation.

Our judiciary is still not truly independent. Until they are, going to the courts is unlikely to be a successful recourse. In addition, someone more versed in Bangladeshi legal issues can enlighten us, but I was under the impression that the initial costs for civil tort cases in Bangladesh were exorbitantly high, and that was one of the reasons why we do not see too many civil suits being filed.

I agree with you that these leaders were brought in as party heads for the exact specific reasons you mentioned. And they did not campaign for becoming leaders.
However, against the norm, these women did step to takethe job. They did not have to, but they did and that given that they were women in Bangladesh, which was at that point under military dictatorship was extremely couragous. At the same time, it was a symbiotic relationship between the leaders and them(as you mention).

However, once they got the roles as heads, they did actively take part in politics and justified their choice as leaders to some level (I am mentioning 1981-90). After that keeping them was a way to channel the popularity of mujib and zia.

Well by bringing democracy back to the country, I was referring to the events of 1990. And these people did actively initiate that. So, in that sense they did good.

With regards to legal immunity. If you make an honest mistake while at office, then after you are done with your terms you will have to face severe consequences. This would mean that when you are at office you will be risk averse. I am not saying that they should have complete legal immunity, but under circumstances they should have some sort of legal immunity. I think the president of the US gets some sort of legal immunity after the two terms, doesnt he?

[shaad]

Originally Posted by Special 1
With regards to legal immunity. If you make an honest mistake while at office, then after you are done with your terms you will have to face severe consequences. This would mean that when you are at office you will be risk averse. I am not saying that they should have complete legal immunity, but under circumstances they should have some sort of legal immunity. I think the president of the US gets some sort of legal immunity after the two terms, doesnt he?

I believe the US president has immunity while he is serving (though impeachment proceedings can be brought against through the legislature, not the judiciary), but can be tried after he has finished his term (You might want to check this though, since I am not 100% certain). And that is him to prevent him from being distracted with legal proceedings while he is busy with governing the nation. I don't have a problem with that since they can always be tried afterwards (in reality that rarely happens because of political pressure, but we are talking about the principles here). But allowing a PM or president complete legal immunity for anything they might have done during their tenure, even after they have finished serving, leaves the door open for anything, from embezzlement to genocide.

Again, competent people are not risk-averse; however, taking risks or making unorthodox decisions is different from knowingly transgressing the law. And I think only incompetent people or people who have some other ulterior motives and machinations in mind need worry about needing legal immunity. And those are not the type of people I would like to us elect as our MPs or PM.