Do you get the feeling that the modern political tactic of bringing elections and other actions to a standstill is starting to be even more disruptive? It makes the gridlock of older days seem...
Do you get the feeling that the modern political tactic of bringing elections and other actions to a standstill is starting to be even more disruptive? It makes the gridlock of older days seem almost superfluous by comparison.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. This wasn't an election. The President sacked one Prime Minister, appointed another Prime Minister in his place, and the Sri Lankan Parliament responded with...
I'm not sure what you're referring to. This wasn't an election. The President sacked one Prime Minister, appointed another Prime Minister in his place, and the Sri Lankan Parliament responded with a vote of no confidence, showing that the newly appointed PM did not have the support of the Parliament.
Parliamentary convention is that the head of state (be it a president or a monarch) appoints a Prime Minister who commands a majority of votes in the people's house of a bicameral parliament. A President who suddenly sacks such a Prime Minister, and who appoints a person who does not command a majority in the parliament is acting against a centuries-old convention - and the Sri Lankan Parliament demonstrated this for President Sirisena's benefit: "a majority of lawmakers remain loyal" to the ousted P.M.
The President had tried to dissolve Parliament and hold new elections, but there are claims that this would be unconstitutional, so the Sri Lankan Supreme Court needs to rule on this matter before it can proceed.
I don't see anything in this situation about "bringing elections and other actions to a standstill". It's the normal operation of a parliamentary system, given the abnormal trigger of a majority-controlling Prime Minister being ousted by a head of state.
Do you get the feeling that the modern political tactic of bringing elections and other actions to a standstill is starting to be even more disruptive? It makes the gridlock of older days seem almost superfluous by comparison.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. This wasn't an election. The President sacked one Prime Minister, appointed another Prime Minister in his place, and the Sri Lankan Parliament responded with a vote of no confidence, showing that the newly appointed PM did not have the support of the Parliament.
Parliamentary convention is that the head of state (be it a president or a monarch) appoints a Prime Minister who commands a majority of votes in the people's house of a bicameral parliament. A President who suddenly sacks such a Prime Minister, and who appoints a person who does not command a majority in the parliament is acting against a centuries-old convention - and the Sri Lankan Parliament demonstrated this for President Sirisena's benefit: "a majority of lawmakers remain loyal" to the ousted P.M.
The President had tried to dissolve Parliament and hold new elections, but there are claims that this would be unconstitutional, so the Sri Lankan Supreme Court needs to rule on this matter before it can proceed.
I don't see anything in this situation about "bringing elections and other actions to a standstill". It's the normal operation of a parliamentary system, given the abnormal trigger of a majority-controlling Prime Minister being ousted by a head of state.
Yes, I got my no-confidence news articles mixed up.