This is true for the process of logical reasoning: The name is not the thing named .
There is nothing in the name "father" who évoquât paternity. If the cat is a cat, he could just as easily been called "CMBS" - the reverse-n'affectât without the least capacity to chase mice. And what about the presidential "president"?
Except for fathers, cats and presidents, human connotations attached property, qualification, generic names which he dressed up men things and entities, and even only ideational.
Especially when that man is political and he talks about things that are not less.
... In the same logic-political-speak for some others. And others. For never to speak well. Now then speak ill of others, speak well of you. In any case suggest that one is better than being talked about. That, indirectly, assume the starring role. Hence
categorizations: they define and identify. It is also their subject. They camped and run the articles. Rarely, if ever, for those thus- they indicate conclusively not challenge what is said about them. Nor do they intend n'interrogent and legitimacy of that says. De facto acceptance that betrays a certain intellectual lassitude. Or simple resignation over the fact accomplishes. "Who says nothing agrees, pose-t-on, the speaker is right" . To do!
Who ever wondered what a real government? A Council or a body of ministers, a cabinet?
The two terms, and government minister, convene one or the other. Everywhere in the world.
Unless the United States where one finds no minister in the government, but only the Secretaries of State! Like Libya, and that's the most curious, even if a word by: Its General People's Committee, the Government is only composed of secretaries ...!
For all, except someone ephemeris assigned to Ubu-kings of this world, it is that the Vatican to the vagueness of which he is smitten. So the ministers of His Holiness Pope are somehow appointed secretaries, governors and other assessors who also boasted of being raised to such dignity. From there to sanctify themselves there is only small step past the Commissioners of State, ministers of the former Zaire, had rashly taken. As they deified their only principal, "the President-Founder" itself already "Father of the Nation"!
supreme executive power or parliamentary system, the government is the locus of political power, and refers to all those who hold it. Except for Ubu-kings who, fortunately, increasingly rare in this world.
One can only wonder, but the oddities are the prerogative of the political system-that often prefix parliament (parliamentary) also should designate a totalitarian government, absolute
... This form of government is usually attributed to Africa. And North Korea: Pyongyang's regime pays often chronic. Sometimes also that of Havana. But the Beijing government probably does not do enough to deserve the epithet "odious regime!
was believed to know everything about the junta , it blurred the pounding of boots, and that the term does attaches itself to a military government. Now then Oxford defines it as a Council meeting administrative policy in Spain, Portugal and Latin America . And add essentially military junta. Suggesting that the junta is not necessarily military. The definition can be seen, may be suitable for many institutions all that is more democratic! Apart from the territories to which it owes (Spain, Portugal and Latin America), the junta, as an assembly Administrative done in public affairs. Who knew?
So since the government of the United States is a administration, it could just as well be synonymous with junta! As well as all administrative meetings, yet so they were democratic or not does not, at this stage, no problem. Nowhere it is mentioned. Democracy is not a requirement here is a condition sine qua non. Here now
military governments in an advantageous relationship.
The Palestinian government, this strange building is called Authority. The specimen is unique in itself, presumably because it is tailored to none worldwide. This is what happens when you let others speak for or against, itself. Oxford dictionary is ever-ready to divert to "Authority" superiority of merit or seduction requires obedience without coercion, respect, trust . Fatah? Hamas? But still: bodies of power. But why not "government" at all? Especially as the representatives of that government entity (West Bank and Gaza Strip) is an assembly elected by universal suffrage, with a font (and no army), and representatives in several countries. Why this characterization? Sovereignty? There are governments in exile, government-ghosts. Even the Western Sahara Moroccan-represented by the Polisario Front claims a government. And the government of Northern Ireland, which has also that a degree of autonomy, is not regarded as an authority ...
tossed it then a transitional status? Why then these Western Balkan countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Kosovo were they have in their paths towards sovereignty, governments?
No other political entity in its progress towards peace-with-or without the occupant, never saw his government be "treated" Authority. Because the term is not devoid of connotation, far from it.
Authority, always Robert, call it whatever yad'autoritarisme: Right control, power (recognized or not) to enforce obedience . And everything is made of the authority is "not tolerate discussion, without consulting anyone ..."
The late and first president of the Palestinian National Authority, Yasser Arafat, took it all literally. Because it believed the words of Bill Clinton. For it is the U.S. president that is this strange fancy language after the conclusion of the "Oslo Accords of 1993. By which man is caught between wanting to in history.
This terminology, Authority, is only the result of consuming personal ambition. It did not exist before those agreements, and one can bet that no government in the future, will not allow himself to take a picture wearing such accoutrements.
Or even that, less cramped, Directoire, another name for government ... National Authority Palestienienne.
EMERY G. UHINDU-GINGALA
