You know, parliamentary institutions are complex things, and when you are talking about the parliamentary system, what I would say is that dissolution is pretty much, as they say in English, in the nature of the beast.
Now, some people have tried to create the impression that early elections were a monstrosity or something unheard of, that we were real troglodytes, clinging to our own practices on this. Wait a minute. Let me quote you one of the best contributions on this topic, an article that appeared in the American Political Science Review in 2002. It agrees, by the way, that the use of dissolution is often opportunistic, but what does it have to say about fixed date elections? It says: Contemporary parliamentary constitutions vary widely in their dissolution powers. There are some systems in which discretionary dissolution is constitutionally proscribed
-- through fixed date elections--
in Switzerland, which we admittedly would not classify as a parliamentary democracy, Parliament can be dissolved only upon constitutional amendment. And while the Norwegian constitution in practice is clearly parliamentary, it permits no early dissolution of...(the Norwegian Parliament) for any reason. Yet such cases are rare. Most constitutions permit parliamentary dissolution and place the ultimate decision in the hands of the head of state...
The point to be understood here is that dissolution is part and parcel of the parliamentary system. I won't venture to explain to you the historical circumstances that led the Norwegians not to have dissolution, but I can tell you they are clearly peculiar and it had to do with their status as an associate of Sweden earlier.