Chocolate: passage of constitutional deadline for president election leads country to elections

Eugen Cakoli from KDI wrote that if the president is not elected by March 5th, the country goes to the polls.

According to him, if the deadlines depend on will, they lose every meaning.

Posting:

As we enter the last four days of the constitutional deadline for the president's election, it seems, unfortunately, that this time “gara” is going on about who the country will be blamed if the country goes to the polls again, instead of focusing on reaching a solution that gives the country stability. They have even begun to mention ideas that political crises, artificially produced, be delegated to the Constitutional Court, as if it were a mechanism for political solutions, not guarantors of constitutional order.

In fact, the very way the Constitution has built the president's election shows that this process is meant beyond the usual parliamentary majority votes. The demand for quorum and the votes of two-thirds of MPs in the first rounds is a clear “anti-most”, designed to produce a president with broader support than the ruling majority of the moment.

The procedure, with at least two candidates and demands for 30 nomination signatures, structure the race in order to be nominally democratic, while political support is built before the vote; with the third round ensuring completion of the process and institutional continuation. This procedure rule aims to ensure that the presidency does not return to a continuation of the usual political clash.

The passage of the constitutional deadline for electing the president, which is 5 and not March 4th, leads the country into a state of non-fulfillment. Such a situation can practically be addressed only through early new elections. Because if deadlines depend on the will to start procedures, then they lose every meaning. This, in analogy, would be the same as the term for restoring the Assembly not to begin until the constitutional gathering is called.

Above all, constitutional standards cannot be read in isolation and only literally, because no constitution can foresee any political situation. The less the eventual failure of this process will be the result, not of any constitutional uncertainty, but of political will. Or, rather, his lack of solutions.