GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/690589/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 690589,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/690589/?format=api",
"text_counter": 177,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Bunyasi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 2511,
"legal_name": "John Sakwa Bunyasi",
"slug": "john-sakwa-bunyasi"
},
"content": "completely disagree with any suggestions that when you think about parties, you think about individuals. Therefore, the choices that were being given of individuals who are current party leaders who are all in the race, is a mistaken view. I would like to ask my colleagues who for various reasons, whether it is as a result of corporate whipping or any other reasons, have now decided contrary to last week’s mood that the thing to do is to restrict party-hopping, to think about it. I am hoping that tomorrow we will have amendments to put this to the test. They should ask themselves the last time their party held internal elections and how they went. I have read in the Press that there are some parties which have never held elections since they were set up. They are all run by interim officials. They plan to hold elections only after the next general elections. There is a good reason why they are doing this; the system does not work internally. The systems are going to be driven top-down and that is what we are against. Ask yourself if that is the case. The second question is if you have an answer as to why your party has not held successful elections internally and why it has no unique register. That has been the pain of political party membership. Parties do not have the capacity or the willingness to produce unique registers that can then be used on the voting day so that nominations are handled just by those who are members. The issue is not whether you have been fairly selected, but whether you have selected the most popular candidate in the elections."
}