Rooted in British colonial legacy, the parliamentary system of government has continued to fail. Given Pakistan’s political realities, the presidential system might deliver better results
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. .. Source
One thought on “A case for the Presidential System in Pakistan”
When there were only 313 Muslims in the world they had no trouble in coming together, joining hands with each other to establish the first Islamic state. Was there a King or a Ruler? No. None whatsoever. So how did the system work? The people were Muslims as such showed the Kalemah in their deeds. Through democratic action of all, they acted according to the way shown by the Almighty thus became responsible citizens. Responsible for running their state through Peoples’ Jumeeyah and Shoorah. The ideal way to run a country. They were only 313 in number who brought about the establishment and running of the Islamic State. Today there millions who claim to be Muslims, yet not one Islamic State to seen anywhere in our world? Why?
Those 313 proved by their deeds to be Muslims whereas the millions today prove by their deeds NOT to be like those who were Muslims.
The way to create an Islamic State is in the hands of those millions. They all should realise that those 313 stablished the Islamic State through their unity i.e. Jumeeyah and co-operation and self help. All those millions in number need to make themselves Muslims like those 313 souls. Muslims by proving to be abiding by the Kalemah they recite, in their deeds.
Muslims obey the Almighty only and since the Almighty commanded them to obey the holy Prophet (saw). Muslims need to obey no other man than the holy Prophet (saw).
To create the foundation of an Islamic State in every locality, every qusbah, every Muslim must work to create their Jumeeyah i.e. Union of the people, by the people, for the people by making it their ritual to come and meet others of their neighbours regularly.
Once they start meeting others to co-operate and to work collectively to bring about welfare and security for the everyone living in their neighbourhood they shall be on their way to achieving a welfare state.
If the people at large will not be prepared to become Muslims and create their Jumeeyah and Shoorah, slavery of all the slave takers we see ruling all over the world shall remain their fate. To bring about the change, the people need, is in the hands of no one but the people themselves. The soonest people throughout the world realise this, the better for them. No one will come from anywhere to change the pitiful condition people bring upon themselves by their inaction. No one came to change the condition of those 313. They changed it themselves. Likewise all those millions will need to work to change their condition themselves.