Why Bashar is the Right Man for the Job!

I was just sitting there searching for information on the Syrian President, Dr. Bashar Al-Assad, when I realized just how sad people can be. First of all, they compare this guy to Saddam Hussein and they assume that total power is vested in this one man. What I realized next was just how privileged I am to be smart comapred to most people who write simple garbage on the Internet. For those of you who write this trash online and for those of you who believe it, I think you might find this article quite helpful.

Let me give you a brief biography on the Syrian President. First of all, he is the second eldest son of the late president, Hafez Al-Assad. Although he spent a good amount of time serving in the Syrian military, his main passion was with ophthalmology- specializing in the study of the eyes, which he was pursuing while he was in the United Kingdom. Basically, he wanted to become an eye doctor, not a head of state. That all changed on January 21, 1994, when his older brother, Bassel, was killed in an automobile accident. His father saw to it that Bashar's future lay in Syria's presidency. Although he was reluctant at first to except the job, he eventually sided with his father's wishes and prepared to be groomed. He inherited Syria's presidency on July 17, 2000, just 37 days after the death of his father. He is married to Asma Al-Akhras, a Syrian businesswoman who was born and lived in Britain; she was on her way to study for an MBA at Harvard Univeristy before marrying the Syrian President. They have two sons and a daughter.

I have told you quite a bit about Bashar Al-Assad and now its time to analyse just why he is the right man for the job. Let's first start with his military career. Bashar did train in the military, but not to the extent that his older brother was involved in. Today, he holds a plethora of military titles, but they are solely symbolic since they are required for a head of state. Thus, we can now see that his main ambition was never to become a president, since military expertise is required as I have already explained. You may be thinking to yourselves that the only reason he did not pursue a military career was because he never expected to become president, but that's untrue since his younger brother Maher became deeply involved in the military.

Secondly, he studied opthalmology in the United Kingdom. While he were in London, he witnessed exactly what the West could achieve. This became the basis for his plans to reform Syria politically, economically, and socially. Some are arguing that after five years, he should have achieved much more than is at present. My advise is go to Syria, since you've probably haven't and see to yourself what has changed- the Internet has come to Syria, women have been encouraged to enter into the field of business (partly thanks to Mrs. Al-Assad), people have begun to speak up on the lows and highs of the government. This was never the case five years ago. Also, bear in mind that Bashar needs to balance out his agenda with that of the old guard, the establishment that the President inherited from his father.

Unlike most world leaders, Bashar is a family man in the eyes of the public. His three children are all still infants and his wife is very popular in the eyes of the people. Ask people what they like most about the President, and tehre's a good chance they will say his family. His wife, who could be considered British until she moved to Damascus, is very educated and understands the needs of country like Syria. There are occasions when Bashar and his wife engage with the people and ask them what they hope to see. There was even talk that before he became president, he would give people his number to contact him regarding any problems they had (although this is still not verified).

You may think to yourself that the people have to show him affection because if they don't bad things will happen to them- this utter nonsense. Take for example, President Assad's visit to the UK in December 2002. As he and his wife arrived at the Dorchester Hotel, hundreds of Syrian expatriots were chanting their admiration for him- yes in Britain, a country where they don't have to do that. Syrians genuinely like Bashar. Even the Muslim Brotherhood, who fought against his father, have come to realize that he is the right man for the job at this point, especially since he released many of their colleagues from prison.

There are many people out there who underestimate him. These comparisons to Saddam Hussein are clearly garbage. Saddam would not have let his prisoners out of jails; he most likely would have executed them. If George W. Bush continues with this pressure, it may help Bashar sideline the old guard as he pushes for his reforms. If Bush wants to do something else, my advice is just to remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The major miscalculation was the support Castro had from his people. If the US wants to execute the same scenario, Syria will only go back in time. Right now, the right man for the job is Bashar!

The Problem with British Parliamentary Democracy!

How many of you know that during the recent British elections on May 5th, the people of Sedgfield had the power to unseat Tony Blair as prime minster if they wished? You see the thing with the British government is that it functions as a parliamentary democracy, where sole authority comes from Westminster. Sedgefield is one little constituency out of more that 650. To show the problem with this, allow me to explain to you the process of how the British government is formed.

Whenever there is an election every five years (but it can be called before if the Prime Minister wishes), the 650+ seats in the House of Commons are up for grabs. On election day, the British public vote for any of the candidates who want to represent their constituency. For example, if I were a resident of Blackburn, I would vote for one of the candidates (who could be a member of any political party) running to represent Blackburn as a constituency in the House of Commons. Thus, I don't vote directly from the Prime Minister.

Once the election is over, the political party who obtains the most seats in the Commons gets to form the next government. There are instances when no party obtains a majority and thus, a 'hung parliament' is declared. In that case a coalition government will have to be formed (most likely, the Liberal Democrat Party will work with the Labour Party and keep the Conservatives out of the government). The leader of the party with the majority of the seats, so along as he or she has won a seat, gets to become the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will then appoint other MPs to take up portfolios in the cabinet.

So you see, all these people in Tony Blair's cabinet, including the Prime Minister himself, have to win seats. Had Tony Blair lost in Sedgfield, he could not have returned as Prime Minister. Similarly, if Jack Straw had lost in Blackburn, he could not have returned as Foreign Secretary. So I think its a bit funny how one small group of people, as oppose to the entire country, has the power remove a major figure from office.

Another problem I see deals with accountability. Let's say for example that your MP is from the Labour Party and you support him because he has done good things for you. Now let's say you very angry with whole fiasco of the Iraq War and you want to see the back of Tony Blair. However, you know that if you want Tony Blair out, you're going to need to vote against the MP whom you support; this is obviously a very big problem for you. You are, in reality, voting against your conscience.

One last major problem is the House of Lords- members of the British nobility who are simply appointed by the Prime Minister, not elected, and who are entrusted with power to vote on certain bills that relate to the lives of ordinary people. Now I know that in order for a bill to become an act (as long as it does not relate to money), it must be approved by both Houses. Hence, I realize that the House of Lords will not support a bill that will terminate their status. Here's my proposal (make sure no peer reads this article before my proposal succeeds). Get an MP to propose a bill that allows the government to call for a national referundum on certain issues (this may already exist, but I can't bee too sure). The House of Lords will have to support it since they can't be seen to look down upon the people's right to rule. After it receives royal assent from the Queen, call for a referundum to dismantle the House of Lords. Now, the government may receive lots of money from these guyz, but never fear, you can always use Iraqi oil as a surrogate.

Now, I have listed all the problems with British parliamentary democracy. Here's the solution: once the House of Lords is scrapped, replace with the House of Representatives, which will be based proportional representation. Proportional representation is where the people simply vote for a political party on a national basis, as oppose to a constituent basis. After you have decided how many seats fit into this new House, allow a proportionate number to be given to each party based on how many votes they obtained. For example, if Labour win 30% of the national vote, give them 30% of the seats. Let this be your bicameral legislature, where the people have a much greater say.

Finally, allow the Prime Minister to be elected by the people. He will then appoint a cabinet whose members won't have any seats in Parliament. This will also help with expertise in all the fields. For example, when it come to appointing a Secretary of Defence, you can pick a general, as oppose to picking a person like John Reid, who was a health secretary and probably does not know so much about protecting the state from foreign invasion.

I hope you will take my recommendations seriously, since they provide the key to true democracy, unlike in the United States, where the forefathers were afraid of people making decisions. As for the Royal Family, keep them where they are since they are great for the tourism industry.