Pakistan adopted the parliamentary system of government primarily because prior to the coming into force of Indian Independence Act, 1947, the sub-continent had a system based on Westminster parliamentary democracy. The colonised people of sub-continent got themselves virtually enslaved to the ostensibly dazzling parliamentary form of government without comprehending its consonance with their values, needs and heterogeneity as distinguished from homogenous society of the United Kingdom. The parliamentary form of government hinges upon the conventions and traditions of the British constitutional law.
Every government system aims to develop a welfare state by alleviating poverty, creating employment opportunities and guaranteeing fundamental rights, etc. The parliamentary system has been tested time and again, but in vain.
A great many reasons are attributable to its failures. First, voters in various constituencies are kept illiterate so that they may not acquire critical thinking to say good-bye to status quo forces. Second, criminalisation of politics through the use of enforcers to protect vested interests. Third, victimisation of political opponents by initiating anti-corruption cases, etc. Fourth, unnecessary focus on local issues over matters of national importance. Fifth, a lack of leadership in political parties, which ultimately gives rise to crises of leadership at the national level. And last, the evil of defections and desertions. The list, however, is not exhaustive.
In the parliamentary system, there is no separation of powers between legislature and government. The political executive manipulates legislations and laws are inevitably made by the government rather than the parliament
In the parliamentary system, there is no separation of powers between legislature and government. The political executive, chosen from the legislators, holds the real executive power, and hence manipulates legislations. Therefore, laws are inevitably made by the government rather than the parliament. This paradoxically transforms the democracy into an elected dictatorship.
There is often a lack of cohesion between party members, especially the ones forming government, in the parliamentary system. Unity, if any, is always based upon compromises and conciliations for vested interests, with threats of defections looming. With the balance of power in politics being fragile, a smallest fraction of desertion can destabilise a delicate system like ours.
A significant demerit of the parliamentary system is the patronisation of blue-eyed bureaucrats, who can operationalise unconstitutional orders of the government in power.
The past 74 years bear testament to failures of government systems in Pakistan, including the dictatorial regime of Ayub Khan wherein a presidential system did exist but was totally flawed, because it was not tailored on a democratic model laced with guarantee of fundamental rights.
In the presidential system, the unelected ministers aren’t motivated by short-term populist measures and concentrate on long-term national goals
Under the presidential system, the president is the de jure as well as de facto head of the country’s administration. The president enjoys complete discretion in selecting those people as ministers who possess potential to discharge duties of their respective portfolios effectively and ably. The selection pool is vast and not confined to parliamentarians. The political executive, thus chosen, represents cross-sections of society.
The presidential system has its own advantages. First, and foremost, unelected ministers are neither motivated by short-term populist measures, nor bound by party compromises, and concentrate on chalking out policies for long-term national goals. Second, ministers completely devote their energies to the country’s development rather than wasting their time in endless politics and conciliations.
Another important advantage of the presidential system is that party discipline is maintained, with lessor chances of desertions. They thus pay full attention to the business of legislation along with focusing on strengthening the constitutional framework and rule of law.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the writer’s own and do not reflect Friday Times/Naya Daur’s editorial policy.
you have to be from Punjab or an ex military officer to demand a Presidential system to ask to concentrate power in Punjab that is why we lost east Pakistan all Punjabi establishment wants to do is steal resources from Sindhi at the cost of development in Sindhi and other provinces how about a Co-nfederation with the center only having power of defense, foreign Affairs and currency as a matter of fact even currency should be be separate and a quota system for officers at the FO. you can keep the 10 districts of Punjab for your soldiers recruits ! and fight TTP, TLP JUI Jamiat all who have roots in Punjab and are creations of the establishment anyway !
a nice write up….i concur with the colonial mindset and the system adopted part, a system that was crippled within the framework of our cultural-linguo-politico-hypocritical hysteria simultaneously relieving us of the duty to customise the not-so proven formula of the west resultantly implicating our country men for throbbing on the back of this country paralysing it from doing the necessary function of A State yet they are called the saviours of democracy.
Problem is, not that proponents of presidential system find it better than parliamentary system, or a presidential system in USA lure them, nothing like that. they want an all powerful president (USA president is not powerful) like our first iron man with a strong center, totally different from the USA. surprisingly, this mind set fails to learn from history what miseries have all powerful (non-elected) presidents have brought to this lovely country
Pros and Cons are mentioned comprehensively and surprisingly what I thought about the demerits of government are stated which are the root causes of the failure; period. This article gave me more insight about the parliamentary and presidential setup. Pakistan was crippled when founded as independent and still facing the vast problems and need to work as one unit.
Is he being serious? The unelected ministers completely devote their energies to the country’s development rather than wasting their time in endless politics and conciliations?? It is exactly because of unelected minister that have cozied up to the president who have taken decisions that have virtually handicapped the Pakistani state. It was under the hnlecwtes ministers under the presidential system when the decision to allow Pakistan to be used as a frontline state for Us was decided without any discussion in the first Afghan war. It was under another presidential system where the decision to allow Taliban to find sanctuaries in Pakistan was decided that we are living with its consequences now. The man is asking for unchecked power under the assumption that Parliament and the questions it asks is nothing more than a distraction when it is anything but. The ministers are elected representative exactly because they are answerable to the general public. Otherwise you will get a violent overthrow of the the elite in power who have nothing in common with what the people want.
The present system in Pakistan is neither Presidential nor Parliamentary. It is a something else very close to Martial Law. Parliament is a rubber stamp. First if all Pakistan needs democracy. At present legislation is made through fraudulent ways and means, Judiciary and even the entire State is compromised. That is why before starting a discussion whether Presidential or Parliamentary system we should start a discussion whether Democracy or Hybrid system in Pakistan.
Constantly reinventing the wheel is not going to take us anywhere.
We should not tamper with the systems we have in endless exercises in futility. Instead of sabotage we need to use the system honestly both in the spirit & letter. Literacy or lack of it as an argument against democracy does not work.