This article is full of blatant plagiarism which is made all the worse for getting Agostinho Neto's name wrong at least three times! If you're going to copy, try and get it right!

Just a few points - the first president was Agostino Neto and Dos Santos has always been reclusive. Nor does he live in a 'vast' palace big yes but not that big. Nor has Angola had 30 years of corrupt leaders. It wasn't a wealthy country until the discovery of major oil reserves in about 1994, when corruption began to become endemic.

The system by which the president is elected is important but both systems are in widespread use and legitimate. A change to the constitution relating to the head of is important and hopefully will reduce the powers of the head of state, which were largely assumed during 25 year of war and which are now entrenched by a notorious patronage system.

There appears to be real debate in Parliament about how the head of state is elected. At present this system is by direct election. The issue is a long term consitutional one - if the head of state is elected independently, the President may come a from a different party to the dominant political party in Parliament, and the powers he - or maybe even she - will have need to be defined if Angola is to have any hope of a democratic future. If the decision on the constitution is that the President is always chosen from the largest party then Dos Santos will remain president until the next elections and the same will hold true for the next electoral winners. There is more going on here than just a desire to stay in power.

The article would be stronger if there was less conjecture in it.

The journalist or the opinion maker, who wrote this peice is so naive, that even proper names of envolved people he is talking about, doesn't know how to spell it.

Go back to the school.