Presidential or Parliamentary System in Pakistan?

By Jibril Khalid
Class IV

In Pakistan, the debate on the question that whether we should adopt a

presidential form of government or continue with the parliamentary system

has gained momentum and renowned analysts and scholars like

Shamshad Ahmad and Dr Atta-ur-Rahman are increasingly favouring the

presidential form of government.

For instance, former federal minister Dr Atta recommends basic changes in

the system of democracy and says that “the presidential system of

democracy should be introduced”. And, former foreign secretary Mr

Shamshad Ahmad opines, “Temperamentally, we are a ‘presidential’

nation. It is time we abandoned the system that we have never been able

to practice, and explored an adult franchise-based ‘presidential system’

suitably designed for and tailored to Pakistan’s needs.”

1
First of all, it is important to remember that parliamentary and presidential

systems are two entirely different concepts:

In presidential form, there is no concept of ‘government’ rather it is an

‘administration’ and under the influence of ‘Separation of Powers’ theory,

the judiciary and the legislature are separate institutions.

In a parliamentary system, there is a government that consists of three

institutions — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. There is a

‘fusion’ of power in this form, rather than the separation of powers.

Constitution is considered ‘supreme’ in a presidential system and all

institutions draw their powers form it. The parliamentary system is based on

‘parliamentary supremacy’ and no court in the country can challenge its

authority. Parliament is the source of all powers in the community and the

regions/provinces have no reserved powers.

Now that we have understood the basic contours of presidential as well as

parliamentary form of government, let’s analyse the question: “Why

Pakistan needs presidential form of government?”

2
In parliamentary system of democracy, as in Pakistan, the prime minister is

the head of the government. The ministers are appointed only from

parliament, and if there is a weak opposition, there are few checks and

balances against corruption. The heads of organisations such as ECP,

NAB, FIA, FBR, SBP, etc., are usually cronies appointed by the

government in power so that they can turn a blind eye to the massive

corruption that goes on under their noses. Even the FIA has been made

helpless to catch senior government officials for cooperation.

This form of government in Pakistan has benefited only a few individuals as

the parties have become mere dynasties where none is allowed to

challenge party head’s supremacy or aspire to become party supremo

himself. In fact, we have a political monarchy in the name of democracy.

There are many other issues in parliamentary form in the context of

Pakistan. They include, but are not limited to, the caste system, feudalism,

dynastic politics, threat of no-confidence against the prime minister, horse

trading and lesser accountability.

3
A presidential system, in theory, entails separation of powers and built-in

checks on the exercise of executive power. The French and the US

systems have strong checks on the authority of the presidents that

ensure a separation of powers between the legislative, executive and

judicial arms of the government. But in Pakistan’s case, there is a

troubled history and legacy of four ‘presidents’, who enjoyed

overwhelming power over other branches of the government.

There were assemblies under Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Pervez Musharraf

but they only acted as rubber stamp institutions. Such a system

continued the colonial tendencies of centralised political power; and was

resisted by federating units that felt marginal to central authority

exercised by civil-military bureaucracy. Which is why the 18th

Amendment was a historic moment when this centralisation was done

away with to a great extent. An underlying theme of Pakistan’s history

has been a dysfunctional federal system that was finally addressed by

18th amendment after six decades of the country’s existence. A reversal

of this process will harm the workability of the federation, and revive the

fault lines that the past decade has tried to address and repair.

4
CONCLUSION

Isn’t it odd that there is still a debate on whether Pakistan should have a

parliamentary or presidential form of government nearly seventy years

after the country’s inception? That should be the real question and not

whether which system of governance would suit the country. It isn’t as if

there haven’t been several experiments already. We struggled to draft a

constitution, we’ve swung between indirect elections and universal

suffrage, parliamentary and presidential, non-party based elections to

multi-party, civilian governments and military governments and the

various shades in between.

The time for experiments should be over. Another experiment will not

yield stability, as the advocates of a presidential system would have us

believe. The notion of a strong president above the petty concerns of

constituency politics, and separate from the messy business of

legislation is romantic at best, dangerous at worst. The need right now is

stability, for political parties to work together on common national issues

and parliament to be given its due importance. A country of 200 million

is not a lab experiment. Given the legal and historical precedents

weighed in favour of a parliamentary system, it should be time to put

away the Bunsen burners and white coats.

5