What's new

Presidential System is the best way to ensure democracy in Pakistan - Parliamentary vs presidential

Reddington

FULL MEMBER
Feb 22, 2019
1,025
20
2,820
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Parliamentary vs presidential

Syed Khawar Mehdi
May 13, 2019

IN over 70 years of Pakistan’s existence, our nation has been embroiled politically due to the ill-advised rabble-rousing tempest of Westminsterian democracy. Ill-chosen by the ruling establishment of the time and their obsession with everything British, and cunningly sustained to date as it diligently serves the well-ingrained vested interests of the rulers more than the ruled, it continues to inflict insult on the creativity, intellect and drive of the people with criminal disregard for the temporally pervasive crisis in governance, all in the name of the much-revered parliamentary system adopted from Westminster.

The Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, though it delivers effectively in England and is fervently admired in Pakistan, is intrinsically ill-suited to the prevailing realities of this land, its people and their needs. Instead, it perniciously and effectively serves political mafias, power brokers and feudal cliques — only to maintain their stranglehold on power without interruption. By no account does the failure of parliamentary democracy justify the military’s historical intrusions and violations, but a weak and unstable system invites all kinds of interference and does not really enjoy the honourable sanctum that its promoters and patrons so intuitively claim when facing critique and censure.

Times have changed, and not just for the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Even the new generation of landed and mercantile class admit that Pakistan’s political system is not only rotten, but delivers poorly on governance. Yet most political leaders, their apologists and many intellectuals remain suspiciously averse to the idea of a debate on the presidential system and want to shoot it down even before giving it a fair trial. So much for being ‘champions of democracy’.

It is vital to initiate a national debate on the form of government that best suits Pakistan.

The future of Pakistan should be above partisan politics. It is vital to initiate a national debate on the form of government that best suits Pakistan, and this must take precedence over political point-scoring and regular mudslinging matches that dominate the prime-time talk shows that define the priorities of the political elite. Some forces will try to get this debate off track and bogged down in partisanship. Nothing is more important than our quest for a stable representative system that delivers democracy and good governance right down to the grass roots. Pakistan’s poor system of government will always remain an obstacle in its advancement towards good governance. It is our collective obligation to seriously scrutinise our system’s essential weaknesses and correct them while we can.

Most Pakistanis are convinced that the presidential system is dictatorial — a one-man rule. It is regrettable how some leading analysts, intellectuals and the media continue to churn out this fallacy only to protect a rotten, mutated system that has bogged us down and is certainly in need of critical review. The reality is that Westminsterian system of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan was deliberately planned and designed to centralise monopolistic control through political mafias and dynasties and does not give two hoots about the interest of the people.

Raising a debate on the presidential form of government and its merits highlights the critical importance of democracy. The presidential system essentially strengthens the argument for an effective form of democracy. It takes people into consideration and delivers on good governance by having legislators focus on governance and delivery rather than budgetary allocations and spending, which in a presidential democracy would be delegated to the people on the ground at the union council level for them to deliver with checks and fundamental transparency.

The argument put forward by proponents of the Westminster model is that Pakistan needs a strong government. We can all agree on this, but do they know what a ‘strong government’ means? If only our parliamentarians knew that a government’s strength comes not from a concentration of powers, but from how efficiently those powers are exercised. Alas, the ground reality points to the contrary. The only way to better exercise powers is through more reliance on local governance. As much as we need a strong national government, we essentially need a grid of efficient, well-structured and agile local governments sensitive to our pluralist society and fully accountable to the people.

What Pakistan needs today is effective and efficient local governance, a less burdensome system accessible to the citizens, better and transparent institutions so people can rely on them — simply replacing governments and not fixing institutions will not eradicate corruption, but rather add to it. Let us not forget that the parliament under Westminsterian democracy is only a single institution, and this becomes the very handicap in applying internal checks on the government. The presidential system, on the other hand, relies on institutional checks that are year-round and not merely on electoral checks (which can indeed lead to abuse of power, as has been the case in Pakistan).

A fresh debate has to be launched at leading institutions and think tanks by academics and political scientists on the presidential form of democracy and what model best suits Pakistan. An unbiased appraisal shows that the institutional and electoral checks that exist in a presidential system keep governments on their toes. The additional guarantees come with institutions checking other institutions on a daily basis.

I am no fan of the US, but the presidential form of democracy that has spanned 45 governments amply demonstrates that this system gives far better protection from dictators than the parliamentary system. The presidential system holds firmly even when a cavalier, myopic individual is on the seat, and effectively contains and protects the country and its people from harm. Changing its model of government to the presidential system is the best way to ensure a democracy that works in Pakistan.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1481947/parliamentary-vs-presidential
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
15,843
10
15,263
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Parliamentary vs presidential

Syed Khawar Mehdi
May 13, 2019

IN over 70 years of Pakistan’s existence, our nation has been embroiled politically due to the ill-advised rabble-rousing tempest of Westminsterian democracy. Ill-chosen by the ruling establishment of the time and their obsession with everything British, and cunningly sustained to date as it diligently serves the well-ingrained vested interests of the rulers more than the ruled, it continues to inflict insult on the creativity, intellect and drive of the people with criminal disregard for the temporally pervasive crisis in governance, all in the name of the much-revered parliamentary system adopted from Westminster.

The Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, though it delivers effectively in England and is fervently admired in Pakistan, is intrinsically ill-suited to the prevailing realities of this land, its people and their needs. Instead, it perniciously and effectively serves political mafias, power brokers and feudal cliques — only to maintain their stranglehold on power without interruption. By no account does the failure of parliamentary democracy justify the military’s historical intrusions and violations, but a weak and unstable system invites all kinds of interference and does not really enjoy the honourable sanctum that its promoters and patrons so intuitively claim when facing critique and censure.

Times have changed, and not just for the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Even the new generation of landed and mercantile class admit that Pakistan’s political system is not only rotten, but delivers poorly on governance. Yet most political leaders, their apologists and many intellectuals remain suspiciously averse to the idea of a debate on the presidential system and want to shoot it down even before giving it a fair trial. So much for being ‘champions of democracy’.

It is vital to initiate a national debate on the form of government that best suits Pakistan.

The future of Pakistan should be above partisan politics. It is vital to initiate a national debate on the form of government that best suits Pakistan, and this must take precedence over political point-scoring and regular mudslinging matches that dominate the prime-time talk shows that define the priorities of the political elite. Some forces will try to get this debate off track and bogged down in partisanship. Nothing is more important than our quest for a stable representative system that delivers democracy and good governance right down to the grass roots. Pakistan’s poor system of government will always remain an obstacle in its advancement towards good governance. It is our collective obligation to seriously scrutinise our system’s essential weaknesses and correct them while we can.

Most Pakistanis are convinced that the presidential system is dictatorial — a one-man rule. It is regrettable how some leading analysts, intellectuals and the media continue to churn out this fallacy only to protect a rotten, mutated system that has bogged us down and is certainly in need of critical review. The reality is that Westminsterian system of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan was deliberately planned and designed to centralise monopolistic control through political mafias and dynasties and does not give two hoots about the interest of the people.

Raising a debate on the presidential form of government and its merits highlights the critical importance of democracy. The presidential system essentially strengthens the argument for an effective form of democracy. It takes people into consideration and delivers on good governance by having legislators focus on governance and delivery rather than budgetary allocations and spending, which in a presidential democracy would be delegated to the people on the ground at the union council level for them to deliver with checks and fundamental transparency.

The argument put forward by proponents of the Westminster model is that Pakistan needs a strong government. We can all agree on this, but do they know what a ‘strong government’ means? If only our parliamentarians knew that a government’s strength comes not from a concentration of powers, but from how efficiently those powers are exercised. Alas, the ground reality points to the contrary. The only way to better exercise powers is through more reliance on local governance. As much as we need a strong national government, we essentially need a grid of efficient, well-structured and agile local governments sensitive to our pluralist society and fully accountable to the people.

What Pakistan needs today is effective and efficient local governance, a less burdensome system accessible to the citizens, better and transparent institutions so people can rely on them — simply replacing governments and not fixing institutions will not eradicate corruption, but rather add to it. Let us not forget that the parliament under Westminsterian democracy is only a single institution, and this becomes the very handicap in applying internal checks on the government. The presidential system, on the other hand, relies on institutional checks that are year-round and not merely on electoral checks (which can indeed lead to abuse of power, as has been the case in Pakistan).

A fresh debate has to be launched at leading institutions and think tanks by academics and political scientists on the presidential form of democracy and what model best suits Pakistan. An unbiased appraisal shows that the institutional and electoral checks that exist in a presidential system keep governments on their toes. The additional guarantees come with institutions checking other institutions on a daily basis.

I am no fan of the US, but the presidential form of democracy that has spanned 45 governments amply demonstrates that this system gives far better protection from dictators than the parliamentary system. The presidential system holds firmly even when a cavalier, myopic individual is on the seat, and effectively contains and protects the country and its people from harm. Changing its model of government to the presidential system is the best way to ensure a democracy that works in Pakistan.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1481947/parliamentary-vs-presidential
problem lies in lack of common sense in EDUCATED PEOPLE not in presidential or parliamentary system

people vote for corrupt pepole and support levish govt spending on subsidies for general public that is where the problem lies
 

Asimzranger

FULL MEMBER
Oct 6, 2016
1,738
-1
3,677
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Parliamentary system is cancer like drug we are addicted to it. Without ground work or justice system even presidential system might be corrupted as absolute power corrupts.
 

jupiter2007

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 19, 2007
4,544
-1
3,323
problem lies in lack of common sense in EDUCATED PEOPLE not in presidential or parliamentary system

people vote for corrupt pepole and support levish govt spending on subsidies for general public that is where the problem lies
Even educated people can become animal.

We don’t need to rely on both of these systems, we can create a new system that has the best of both system. We can have have pseudo Presidential system, Publicly elected president, in which PM and President shared power but President has power to Dissolve assembly.
Regardless what form of government is in the center, if they can not pass laws to improve the livelihoods of the public then they are useless.

Current system has to be fixed immediately. Government must come up with such a strong local body system that can eliminate the need of provinces and laws can be made at divisional level. This will shape the Bureaucracy in the right direction. 40% of jobs can be eliminated by technology and e-government system to reduce government overhead (this is what IMF wants).
Instead of provincial based police, we need strong patriot district based police system with computerized way of registering FIRs and all police stations must have biometric system for attendance and CC cameras to monitor activities.

Our yellow government schools are pretty much useless with 30% to 40% ghost teachers. We need a new National Education system and government must pass laws for no child left behind, a mandatory education system for children under 16. Every child under 16 must be in school otherwise parents have to appear in special court to justify his or her absents from school.
 
Last edited:

The Accountant

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 13, 2016
7,738
19
9,416
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
problem lies in lack of common sense in EDUCATED PEOPLE not in presidential or parliamentary system

people vote for corrupt pepole and support levish govt spending on subsidies for general public that is where the problem lies
This problem is everywhere, didn't American's elected Donald Trump.

The real issue the missing establishment (other than military) in our country. Establishment in every country comprises of think tanks from all key fields but here destruction of bureaucracy and education system by Bhutto's quota system brought irreparable damage to our bureaucracy resulting in their destruction of think tank community and all of talented people moved to private sector
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom