The article analyzes the parliamentary form that was established by the Constitution of 1991 and points out the reasons for choosing it ("European" and "national"). The rationalized parliamentarianism predetermines the relationship between the National Assembly and the Presidential institution.
The similarities and the differences between two public institutions are defined. There are similarities in the direct election; the democratic legitimacy that they enjoy; a hard and fast mandate; their constitutive functions; shared competence in the realization of specific authorizations. A significant difference in the constitutional status of the organs is the ability to bear political responsibility.
The dynamics in the relationships between the President and the National Assembly are pre-sented through the constitutional system - the formation of both institutions; realization of their functions and powers in their joint actions; termination of their powers. The interference of the Constitutional Jurisdiction in constitutional conflicts (contesting the parliamentary and presidential acts and conflicts of jurisdiction) is also pointed.
The relations between the National Assembly and the President, unless the constitutional fra-mework, depend also on two other factors - the balance of powers in the political triangle of power and the personality of the president.
In conclusion, regardless of the political views of the President and the parliamentary majority, the dynamics of the relationship between the two institutions should remain on a constitutional basis.
DIRECTOR
