Comments on: THE DISSOLUTION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL AND SABARAGAMUWA PROVINCIAL COUNCILS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES http://groundviews.org/2008/06/18/the-dissolution-of-the-north-central-and-sabaragamuwa-provincial-councils-the-constitutional-issues/ Groundviews is an award winning Sri Lankan citizen journalism initiative Thu, 24 May 2012 14:16:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Blacker http://groundviews.org/2008/06/18/the-dissolution-of-the-north-central-and-sabaragamuwa-provincial-councils-the-constitutional-issues/#comment-2902 David Blacker Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:35:41 +0000 http://www.groundviews.org/?p=885#comment-2902 I think I would agree with the second approach, since the whole point of dissolution is precisely because the chief minister doesn't have a majority as the first approach demands. That would be like insisting the PM must have a majority in parliament in order for the president to dissolve parliament, when the necessity do dissolve is because the GoSL no longer has a majority. While this might seem to give the provincial governor undemocratic executive powers, it can only be exercised at a particular juncture. While the question of timing is fair, I don't think it's relevant to the constitutional issue, since the constitution doesn't take timing into consideration. I disagree with the the suggestion that the governor could choose an alternate administration made up of a new coalition of opposition members, since this would be far more undemocratic than the exercise of a governor's executive powers. The provincial people voted for a particular coalition against another particular coalition, and to now appoint a coalition which is completely different from the original two coalitions (because of the JVP switching sides) would be undemocratic. It would be an administration not chosen by the people but appointed by the governor, since there is no way of knowing whether a UNP/JVP coalition could win a majority at the ballot box. Therefore, I think the dissolution of the two PCs and a call for new elections is the constitutional and most democratic solution. I think I would agree with the second approach, since the whole point of dissolution is precisely because the chief minister doesn’t have a majority as the first approach demands. That would be like insisting the PM must have a majority in parliament in order for the president to dissolve parliament, when the necessity do dissolve is because the GoSL no longer has a majority. While this might seem to give the provincial governor undemocratic executive powers, it can only be exercised at a particular juncture.

While the question of timing is fair, I don’t think it’s relevant to the constitutional issue, since the constitution doesn’t take timing into consideration.

I disagree with the the suggestion that the governor could choose an alternate administration made up of a new coalition of opposition members, since this would be far more undemocratic than the exercise of a governor’s executive powers. The provincial people voted for a particular coalition against another particular coalition, and to now appoint a coalition which is completely different from the original two coalitions (because of the JVP switching sides) would be undemocratic. It would be an administration not chosen by the people but appointed by the governor, since there is no way of knowing whether a UNP/JVP coalition could win a majority at the ballot box.

Therefore, I think the dissolution of the two PCs and a call for new elections is the constitutional and most democratic solution.

]]>
canakkale canakkale canakkale balik tutma search canakkale vergi mevzuati bagimsiz denetim vergi mevzuati ozurlu engelliler