A few days ago, a trend dominated on twitter was “we want the presidential system.” Some months ago, the same debate regarding the implementation of the presidential system circulated when Imran Khan raised voice against the parliamentary system. He was critical of the parliamentary system since he felt impediment while imposing his sole decisions in the country. Now when ailing Ex. PM Nawaz Sharif made his journey to London; people have begun to curse the parliamentary system. In this trend, the parliamentary system in place was called out the remnant of the British legacy.
Let’s start the discussion whether Pakistan should have presidential democracy or parliamentarian democracy. It is also important to mention that the concerned discussion will reflect the ideal features of parliamentary or presidential democracy. As in Pakistan, right now, the parliamentary system exits in its depraved form, so in the case of favoring the parliamentary system, this would not entail our existing parliamentary system. It is not in that practice in which it should exist.
Before plunging into details which system suits Pakistan, it is necessary to judge the nature and trends of its inhabitants. A system works vigorously when it has compatibility with its characters. Pakistan is a land of varying cultures and people. Its inhabitants have a great appetite to symbolize their culture and caste. The majority of the people couple their caste as their surname to make their identity special. Thus, they aspire to vote and elect that representative who resembles at least their caste or language. Apart from that, the people are inclined to discuss politics, and every person wants to share its thoughts on political scenario. They want their inclusion by pitching feedback to their representatives. Even one will see that a vendor would have its ideology regarding politics and would wish that its ideology be imposed on the state. Thus, in the presidential system, the common man’s judgment becomes inaccessible to the upper authorities and people like the sub-continentals, it is optimum that one should vote for its local representative. It is problematic for 220 million people to elect one person with such a difference in mindset and approach. Hence, it is indispensable that each community should have one representative to which people can vote according to their will. And these representative choose one head of state.
Pakistan has the scenario of uneven development in its four provinces and these four provinces also share the same story. A person from less developed area has analtered mindset than that of those in developed area. When a representative elects from the less developed area on the resolve of people, he at least raises voice for its people on the floor of parliament. Whereas, a president hailing from one sect would be incapable to comprehend the sufferings of many sections of the nation. Therefore, it is requisite that representatives from each section should be elected to spearhead their people in parliament.
In the presidential system, the president shapes its cabinet. So, the representative chosen from the head is far cry from that chosen by masses. Since that representative would have the idea that he is more answerable to the president than its people. In this case, he wouldn’t pay much heed to the people’s issues. Amidst this situation, the very person would try to mitigate the sufferings of its community who would be elected on the will of the people of its area. In this case, the parliamentary system suits Pakistan.
People of the Sub-continent have quest for power, as they seek something under their sound control and repulse the share of another person in their power. In the presidential system, the power remains almost central. Only the president of the state enjoys executive powers, thus in the presidential system, the concept of the devolution of power is negated. Consequently, power is abused by the head of the state. Pakistan has endured the chapters of martial law thrice, which is the testimony to the fact that in Pakistan there has been the tendency to enjoy unparalleled power. Therefore, in the context of sub-continentals, this idea could be lethal. State functions smoothly when there is a devolution of power, and each authority is answerable to its upper. In this regard, parliamentary democracy is the best way to run countries like Pakistan and India. Involvement of Pakistan in the cold war during the Zia regime; the participation of Pakistan in the global war on terror and Laal Masjid operation under the Musharraf regime are the evident steps that were taken by the sole rationale of the presidents. In these steps, no single person was taken into confidence since the country was under the rule of a mere one person. In 2007, judges were sacked to house-arrest, electronic and press media were censored because the country was functioning under the Musharraf regime. This is perfect substantiation that how our country would function under one-man rule.
Pakistan and India are the third world countries. These states necessitate much progress to join the row of the progressed states. To scale these countries to the height of progress, the problems of these states must be discussed under one roof. The parliamentary system provides the representatives to discuss and debate the problems of the masses. When problems are discussed, debated, and argued, the representatives discern the courses of sacrifice, diplomacy, and harmony. And this platform is provided only by a parliamentary system. In the presidential democracy, when the head of state enjoys executive powers, most of the time, he doesn’t bother to discuss the matters with its cabinet.
The parliamentary system has the prospect of making an alliance system and serving its interests. Pakistan is the country with multiple political parties, where each party has its political interests and agendas. Along with major political parties, there are several small parties with many renowned independent representatives that help in making the government. For instance, the MQM, GDA, PML-Q allied with PTI to form the latter’s government. These political parties have their vote’s stores and interests. And if there were the presidential system, these parties would have been suppressed and resultantly there would lethal consequences. The presidential system functions efficiently when a few parties are contesting for power saddle. In Pakistan and India, there are various parties, and these can function under a parliamentary system.
In Pakistan, the current parliamentary system has been dysfunctional because of the absence of political stability. The need for the hour is to amend and rectify the current parliamentary system, rather than to switch to the presidential system. People who ratify the idea of the presidential system often cite the example of the US, Turkey, and Russia, but must bear in their minds that Pakistan is far different from these countries and cannot afford to have a presidential system. The US has a very different story from Pakistan; its literacy rate, demography, and trends are far cry from that of Pakistan. In the US, only three to four political parties contest for power and there is no such diversity in demography like Pakistan. The discern approach would be to stick to the parliamentarian system.
