I'm inclined in a situation like this to almost come with a counter-question, that is, if one judges from the preamble of the bill that the essential objective is to democratize the process, why do we defend it by arguing that the democratic aspects can be ignored? We're talking out of two sides of our mouths here. We say that the whole idea is to democratize the process, but we defend its constitutionality by saying, “But of course we don't have to be democratic in the way we use it”. I just don't understand that double-talk.
On May 7th, 2008. See this statement in context.