This law that compels the innocent public to waste their valuable time almost five years and ruin their lives, has become an unbearable and burdening torture, which even frustrates the future of their unborn children. It is high time that this stupidity should stop. Years after years, they were in total obedience to this law and that too in the name of democracy. People of these countries had enough. To rule a country for the full period the constitution allows, the ruling team must officially and ethically deserve it.
What is the criterion to determine that merit of deserving? Every ruling party comes to people with an election manifesto. The document contains the list of promises to be fulfilled in order to make the life of the people comfortable, happy and peaceful. Have they fulfilled the promises? If yes ok. If not? And on the other way round, if the lives of the people have become relatively much worse than what it was before, such ruling crowds have no ethical rights to rule.
In the name of democracy, it is not the duty and responsibility of people, to knowingly and intentionally allow more couple of years to such ethically unfit crowd with broken political promises, with day-light deceptions and corruptions, to increase their own agony and destroy the innocent future of their born and unborn children. The people must have the rights to finish the rule which disappointed them, which plundered their wealth, which took billions of bribes to stay in one party and again, billions of bribes to defect and cross to another party and form the parliamentary majority and the rule, which made of them fools and enjoyed a gala life with tax, paid by the people as a whole.
Thus, the availability of parliamentarian majority, should not and cannot serve as the right foundation, to recapture the lost power, to continue the captured power and to ensnare people in the trap of the deception of Parliamentarian majority in the name of democracy.
Supremacy foundation
Yes, the Parliament by itself is not supreme, but, it can be supreme. In which circumstances? When the Parliament members are democratically elected by/in an impartial election and such elected members represent the true interest of the people, who elected them, the Parliament can be said to be supreme. When the Parliament efficiently manages the economic, cultural and scientific progress of the country in the best interest of the majority, it can be termed to be supreme.
When the Parliament enacts the laws that profit the people as a whole and does everything to maintain the rule of law, without interfering in to affairs of the judiciary it can be construed to be supreme. When the Parliament incorporates legal norms to net and catch those, joyfully engaged in the blood suction of mega project corruption and in law-manipulated bank robberies and to recover the plundered wealth, it can be expounded to be supreme. If the parliamentarians do not over-spend the funds of innocent majority, paid as tax and lead a simple and ethically acceptable life, such Parliament can be commended to be supreme.
Absence of supremacy ground
The legal validity of the election and the constitutional appropriateness of the member election and the number cannot serve as the basis of Parliamentary supremacy. What is required is not only the validity of election and member electing and their number, but also the true and empirical representation of the interest of public by the members of Parliament.
In many Asian countries, what really happens is, subsequent to the election of members for the Parliament, they, the MPs, forget their right duties and responsibilities, they were called for and self-engage in nepotism, in robbing public wealth, in the improvement of their own privileges by means of increasing diversified taxes, in the structuring of blood suction of huge commissions via macro-projects, in the sale of valuable and strategically significant properties to alien agents and in ruining the well-established self-sufficiency of the motherland and depositing in and subjecting it to the dependence of world market so that the country will be compelled to import many items and the play of the game of commissions shall be put in to absolute ease. Besides, there may be dangerous designs to divide the country in subservience to conspiracies of the so-called international elements of vested interest.
Now, if the democratically elected Parliamentarians are involved in such brutal acts, contravening the constitution, such Parliament cannot be supreme. The presence of Parliamentary majority does not grant rights to parliamentarians to delightfully continue and enjoy above treacherous betrayals. The constitutional validity of Parliamentarians does not serve as the right foundation of Parliament Supremacy. Such supremacy is not only questionable, but also debatable.
Supremacy majority relativity
Hence, the Parliamentary supremacy is not an absolute phenomenon. Nor is the parliamentary majority. They are always relative. The supremacy and the majority must be determined in relation to something. In respect of Parliament, its supremacy and the majority components should be measured relating them to the truth of the best interest of and the best service to people.
If the people are not profited, if their interests are wrongly represented, if their hopes are brutally disappointed, if their innocent dreams are painfully frustrated, they have inalienable rights to finish the rule, which politically betrayed them. In this regard, the Executive is an asset for people. That is to say, if the Parliamentary rule betrays the dreams of the people, if their action infringes the territorial integrity of the country, if those, who are active in the bifurcation of the country dominate the Parliamentarians, by various instructions and orders, which facilitates the division of the country, if they conspire traps to ensnare war heroes of the nation who saved the country from the animalism of terrorism to satisfy the international diasporic elements of vested interest, if the economic prosperity of the people is being castrated by means of gigantic mega corruptions, if the country is being used as the dustbin to throw the health-destroying wastes of other countries, the Executive, as the Head of the State can and must dissolve such Parliament and call for general election, granting the people their right to elect a politico-administrative team to run their affairs.
In this case, the majority aspect cannot serve as the basis to stay in power. The executive is elected directly by the people. He has a duty. His official designation involves a tremendous responsibility. He is answerable to people. His duty is not watching, lamenting and shedding tears, looking at what is happening to people. He cannot be paralyzed and dead. He is a strong political and executive and living figure of action in the best interest of all people.
Concluded
from daily news