A politician found guilty of offence related to office ought not to keep his post like nothing happened. Even so, the next convicted Centre cadre and city district elder Alar Nääme «sees no need for stepping down.»
Editorial: the evasiveness of stepping down
1st July 2016, 12:51
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Where are the demands by comrades in party to go for honesty? Why do we not read about calls to take the responsibility?Where are the voices of the opposition within the party supposedly awake and ambitious?
How hard can it be to smell the foulness of doing election events for city citizens money? True: the ruling can still be appealed. And, naturally, we do go by the presumption of innocence.
Which will not mean a man must continue on a political post. The minimal might be suspending the powers – till clarity come.
In a state ruled by law, the need to prove all things will always be. But keeping the political posts should - if not absolutely excluded – be allowed on exceptional occasions only.
The positions granted to politicians are based on trust and thus in several ways this differs from ordinary people making a living.
In many an area of life, the legal requirements are almost too severe – like with seats at credit institution management, follies of the youth are cited as something casting doubt on integrity and business reputation.
Perhaps, for politicians that indeed would be too harsh, but people in the party might just as well show some moral compass. One would assume that Mr Neeme take a seat on the spare players bench till final verdict enters into force.