What's new

Pakistan needs a FOURTH Political Party to finally end carriers of PPP and PML-N

He is still serving Imctc. That's why. He's not back to civil life completely.
He is not politician and I don't think he is interested in politics. There are a lot of regiret generals who come in talkshows but us na to kbhi koi interview or political statement bhi nhi di.

Agreed. If this continue a bloody revolution will come, a bloody war or some sort of natural disaster.

Sunnat Allah.
Valid point mate. The only way such a thing can happen is if there is an Iranian style revolution but it seems like the Pakistani people are asleep so it won't happen.




Gen Raheel gets my vote too! How did I not have him as a candidate?!?!

They don't allow it as they know that the presidential system is a way out of their shackles. They use Jamuriat to help keep their shackles around nations and control them via sell outs. Economic Hitman!
And Pakistanis in the current political setting
Up seem to be the biggest sell outs / haraamkhors around. Thus why a revolution is needed to pave way for a Putin style presidential system.

Democracy is a cancer for the nation of Pakistan. It just doesn't work in a country where the literacy rate is lacking. It's just a bunch of gangs and thugs fighting for their turf rather than for the nation as a whole.
 
@PaklovesTurkiye

Good thread brother, however, here is my take on this.

I second you that Khan is showing resistance against not only PML-N, PPP but against the mafia's who's seeds were sown by these two criminal gangs i.e. look at the recently caught PIA pilot with fake license/degree and also checkout in how much pain that f**ker billo heshe/gay was when it was announced (about their bogus credentials).

More to the point, they all are trying to corner Khan by various tactics to pressurized and threatened him. I concur that they all believe that khan is the only obstacle in this rotten system (who doesnt belong to this nasty system), therefore voice of minus 1 comes from all directions, because they have this confidence that once Khan leaves the office then PML-N, PPP and others can work with SMQ, Asad Umar or others, however, they and their supporters are utterly delusional if they believe that PML-N's Maryam or showbazz OR that faggot of PPP will be next PM - no, nada not gonna happen (Khan is the last option of this system, somebody needs to drill this in their heads). Also, in these hopeless world economic situation (Pakistani included), neither PML-N or PPP can resolve Pakistan's economic and other crisis, which are caused by them in the first place, so nobody is going to buy what Pinocchio's of PPP & PML-N are trying to sale.

Now coming on the FOURTH national political party - its a good idea, but they again, you will face the same issue which Khan is facing. Pakistan's parliamentarian system is nasty and rotten to the core that no clean person can either break into this, or if by some miracle he does, than he cant survive. For instance, in 2013, Khan had clean folks took part in the elections, but we all saw the outcome. Therefore, eventually he had to cherry pick scums of this system to win the election - I dont understand why this phenomenon so difficult for many to grasp (excluding you :)) and I still see people here whining about - Oh, Khan has filled PTI with old ppp and pmln garbage, idiots.

The thing is, in Pakistan there is no democracy, its the dictatorship. In PML-N dictator is Nawaz, in PML-Q dictators are chaudary bro, in PPP dictator is Zardari so on and so forth, and these dictators have prepared next generation (son's or daughter's) to rule the party and the country going forward. Name me any other country where family based politics happens? Nowhere.

Therefore, I am not sure how fruitful the idea of 4th party is going to be, because eventually in that party, old faces will be recycled, cuz no clean person can come and survive in rotten system of Pakistan.

What Pakistan needs is a new constitution and presidential system.

My 2 cents ...
 
Last edited:
@PaklovesTurkiye

Good thread brother, however, here is my take on this.

I second you that Khan is showing resistance against not only PML-N, PPP but against the mafia's who's seeds were sown by these two criminal gangs i.e. look at the recently caught PIA pilot with fake license/degree and also checkout in how much pain that f**ker billo heshe/gay was when it was announced (about their bogus credentials).

More to the point, they all are trying to corner Khan by various tactics to pressurized and threatened him. I concur that they all believe that khan is the only obstacle in this rotten system (who doesnt belong to this nasty system), therefore voice of minus 1 comes from all directions, because they have this confidence that once Khan leaves the office than PML-N, PPP and others can work with SMQ, Asad Umar or others, however, they and their supporters are utterly delusional if they believe that PML-N's Maryam or showbazz OR that faggot of PPP will be next PM - no, nada not gonna happen. Also, in these hopeless world economic situation (Pakistani included), neither PML-N or PPP can have answer of Pakistan's economic and other crisis, which are caused by them in the first place, so nobody is going to buy what Pinocchio's of PPP & PML-N are trying to sale.

Now coming on the FOURTH national political party - its a good idea, but they again, you will face the same issue which Khan is facing. Pakistan's parliamentarian system is nasty and rotten to the core that no clean person can either break into this, or if by some miracle he does, than he cant survive. For instance, in 2013, Khan had clean folks take part in the elections, but we all saw the outcome. Therefore, eventually he had to cherry pick scums of this system to win the election - I dont understand why this phenomenon so difficult for many to grasp (excluding you :) and I still see people here whining about Oh, Khan has filled PTI with old ppp and pmln garbage, idiots.

The thing is, in Pakistan there is no democracy, its the dictatorship. In PML-N dictator is Nawaz, in PML-Q dictators are chaudary bro, in PPP dictator is Zardari so on and so forth, and these dictators have prepared their son's or daughter's to rule the party and the country going forward. Name me any other country where family based politics happens? Nowhere.

Therefore, I am not sure how fruitful the idea of 4th party is going to be, because eventually in that party, old faces will be recycled, cuz no clean person can come and survive in rotten system of Pakistan.

What Pakistan needs is a new constitution and presidential system.

My 2 cents ...
Bracket not closed, compiler error.... :partay:



On a serious note, amazing post.
 
While I believe that more parties, more participation and more diversity of political options is definitely a good thing. IMO the problem you are describing is not attributable to the lack of fourth or fifth PTI like 'pro-change' party, but simple electoral arithmetic and numbers. And actually another party will not fix these issues at all.

Let's look at the current state of affairs. Let's say the anti-old guard parties vote that PTI represents is something like 30-40% of the vote on average in each constituency, this is in line with PTI's national vote share in 2018 (32%). The rest is divided between PML, PPP, other regional parties, religious parties and independents and others. With a fourth and fifth party on Imran Khan's side, you will still only have that 30-40% of the vote to share between you. The key is to increase the share, not to have that share divided among more parties. Electorally this is a bad strategy.

Even worse, with our electoral system of First Past the Post (a system I've criticized in the past because it damages parties like PTI and favours parties like PPP and PML), with more parties on the ballot offering the same thing. You will just split the PTI vote and give them even fewer seats and less power.
E.g let's call your fourth party PTI-II, let's take NA x constituency where the results by party candidates were:

2018: PTI 35% (winner), PML 30%, PPP 20%, 15% other smaller parties and candidates.

With the FPTP system and another party just like PTI on the ballot the results might be this:

202x: PTI 25%, PML 30% (winner), PPP 20%, PTI-II 15%, 10% other parties.

With FPTP, the fourth PTI like party will only split the vote and make the opposition stronger. Even with a combined vote above 5% higher in the second scenario, the vote is split so you lose.

PTI supporters real problem isn't that there isn't a fourth party or that the opposition is united against them, although the latter is largely their doing. Their problems are that in NA, they are a minority government propped up by a coalition of old-guard parties like PMLQ and MQM, they also have a leadership problem that all Pakistani parties have to some extent. Another problem for PTI is that the current FPTP system is disadvantageous electorally to national parties like PTI in favour of regional stronghold parties, it's also defunct for the current political era. PTI are also too reliant on IK alone, if he goes, or retires in the future, a guy like SMQ is not going to inspire the support of voters as much. Lastly, opposition are emboldened further by the current dilapidated state of Pakistan's economy, criticism of the government really tends to stick when people are suffering, even if some of that suffering is not the fault of the government.
 
PTI has has more seats than pp and noon league combined. And noon leagues votes are close to PTI because PTI won a lot of seats from KP and Karachi where turn out was low. PTI received only 2.1 millions votes in kpk. In Lahore PTI received more than 1 million votes but won only 3 or 4 seats.

I'm just giving you ball park figures in a scenario where in a particular constituency, the vote totals are close. Point is that it is not within PTI's interest to split its own votes with another party, because in those tight constituencies, FPTP makes them lose.

In a national scenario, the situation is a little different, a fourth party might help in places. But if it cannibalizes PTI's own vote in certain areas, it will lose them lots of seats.
 
What Pakistan needs is a new constitution and presidential system.

What sort of new constitution, what changes would you have? And as for a presidential system, we had those in the past, they actually helped establish the likes of PML as parties and other family dynasties.

PTI is not talking about new party it is opinion of OP. I think he wants a new clean party for Karachi
I agree with that on Karachi, but on a national level, fourth party would be okay for the opposition, bad for PTI.
 
What sort of new constitution, what changes would you have? And as for a presidential system, we had those in the past, they actually helped establish the likes of PML as parties and other family dynasties.

I agree with that on Karachi, but on a national level, fourth party would be okay for the opposition, bad for PTI.

I proposed to have new constitution, because I heard it on number of occasions that currents constitution doesnt allow or flexible enough.

And as for
presidential system, we had those in the past,
are you saying that Pakistan had presidential system and latter it was changed? Can you elaborate a bit please?

@Brass Knuckles has explained what I meant by presidential system.
 
Within the current sh1tty British parliamentary system after fourth party we will need a fifth party, then a sixth party, then a seventh party and the infinite mathematical series of these parties will continue forever without converging to anything.

On the other hand, a proportional representation system, like they have in Germany, favors multiple political party's. Also, votes are won primarily on basis of ideology and stance on policy issues. Instead of voting for a single candidate, votes are polled to political parties' directly all over the country and the total % of votes won equals to the number of seats in the legislature.

For the so called 'fourth political party' to emerge, the electoral system has to be changed to that of proportional representation. A possible downside to this change might be more Islamist representation in the assembly but as political parties rarely win a clear majority in the proportional system; Islamist parties would have to tone down their rhetoric and compromise on a lot of issues to have any chance of rule.

This is not entirely true but still somewhat closer to the truth, in fact in Germany during the elections both things happen simultaneously, there are indeed constituencies like Pakistan and there are indeed local candidates contesting those constituencies on their respective party tickets. But the voter actually casts "two votes", one for the direct candidate within his constituency and the second for any party of his choice which then indirectly leads to the proportional representation. It is quite normal in Germany that a voter votes for a certain local candidate belonging to party A but votes his second vote for party B because he thinks that the local candidate from party A is better than the local candidate from party B but at the same time he thinks that party B is ideologically closer to his mindset than the party A. The local candidates who win the election based on first vote get directly into the parliament whereas the parties send their own additional nominated candidates based on their total percentage share of second party vote from the voters. Germany's voting system is quite complicated and it took me more than 10 years to understand it to some degree, it is still not 100% clear to me. But there is also a check and balance in the system to keep the tanga parties or other non-mainstream extremist parties with limited followings out of the parliament, that is no party or its candidates can get into the parliament unless the party gets at least 5% of the total votes cast during the election for the second vote given on party basis (proportional representation) from the voters.
 
Last edited:
I proposed to have new constitution, because I heard it on number of occasions that currents constitution doesnt allow or flexible enough.

Flexible? Constitution can be changed whenever, you just need an amendment. For that you need votes, and for that you need political power. I have no idea what you mean by this. I meant specifically what do you want to see in a new constitution.

Pakistan main presidential system kab tha? By presidential system people mean Amreeki presidential system type system not martial law. Trump is not army chief he is elected president aysay hi Presidential system ki baat Kar rhay Hain.
And as for are you saying that Pakistan had presidential system and latter it was changed? Can you elaborate a bit please?

@Brass Knuckles has explained what I meant by presidential system.

Not a proper one, but we've had presidents with far more power, pre 18th amendment, and article 90 and 52. You could say we had a semi-presidential system as I read it, and for the last decade or so we've had a true parliamentary system. But we had neither in the true sense before. Especially dictatorships and their remnants muddying the definition further.

Frankly, I've yet to hear any very compelling argument for a change to a presidential system. I don't mind it per se, but it's advocated as a fix to our political problems without any real evidence or argument. Actually one can argue we already have presidential electoral politics minus the system, people vote on names of leaders like IK and Sharif, so politically I can see the appeal too. I know you folks probably think IK would be better effective as a President, I would agree, but is that the extent of our clamoring for a new system? While I agree our parliamentary system hasn't been working well, what would be so life changing about that system? And if there are pros, have you thought about the cons?
 
Flexible? Constitution can be changed whenever, you just need an amendment. For that you need votes, and for that you need political power. I have no idea what you mean by this. I meant specifically what do you want to see in a new constitution.

These are three core pillars of a state, legislature, judiciary & executive. The biggest problem is executives (Govt) have severe influence on judiciary. Just checkout how LHC, IHC, PHC & SHC functions and who runs to them to get the relieve.

Furthermore, where power gets exercise? At the police station, at Govt institutes i.e. Passport office, Nadra etc . And we all know how things work in Pakistan, how much corrupt said institutes and departs are and how politician's use their influence on them. I wouldn't be wrong if I call this a mafia, which consist of corrupt bureaucrat, crook politician and feudal lord's - this is your so called status quo.

Coming on legislature, in Pakistan parliament has the power to do the legislation (as you said), however, what laws have they proposed or enforced for the betterment of the people who elect them? Answer is none! Its utterly needless to say even a word what happens in senate and how people got elected. By definition the constitution of a country sets a broad framework in which to make laws, rules and regulations to organise the life of the people, at both the collective and the individual levels. I dont see this happen in parliament.

Politicians of Pakistan are NOT the representation of the civilians. They dont know or care about the issues of civilians, heck they even tried to jeopardize CPEC at some point.

More to the point, NAB's plea bargain is nothing but a joke. What message does it broadcast? It encourages me to indulge myself in corruption, because I know I can offer some portion of that money to NAB and make it totally legit - PLAIN WRONG !!!

Due to all the above and similar details, I strongly believe that parliamentary system hasn't delivered in Pakistan, neither it will in coming years, because this system is rotten to the core and have been hijacked by crook's. The way politicians come in power is "rule by law" AND NOT "rule of law" - there is a massive, massive difference in between both. They make rules to aid and support themselves and their corruption. Pakistan's electoral system is utterly flawed.

That said, I only tried to highlight some of the glaring problem current constitution possesses, which I dont want to see in any shape or form.

Not a proper one, but we've had presidents with far more power, pre 18th amendment, and article 90 and 52. You could say we had a semi-presidential system as I read it, and for the last decade or so we've had a true parliamentary system. But we had neither in the true sense before. Especially dictatorships and their remnants muddying the definition further.

Frankly, I've yet to hear any very compelling argument for a change to a presidential system. I don't mind it per se, but it's advocated as a fix to our political problems without any real evidence or argument. Actually one can argue we already have presidential electoral politics minus the system, people vote on names of leaders like IK and Sharif, so politically I can see the appeal too. I know you folks probably think IK would be better effective as a President, I would agree, but is that the extent of our clamoring for a new system? While I agree our parliamentary system hasn't been working well, what would be so life changing about that system? And if there are pros, have you thought about the cons?

Why people (myself is included) are paddling for presidential system is because of the following:

Direct Elections:
In a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people. In most presidential systems, the president is elected by either popular vote or by an electoral college. This way, the president receives a personal mandate to lead the country, whereas in a parliamentary system a candidate might only receive a personal mandate to represent a constituency. That means a president can only be elected independently of the legislative branch.

Separation of Powers:
A presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. This allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses of power.

A presidential system’s separation of the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinize the actions of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, making criticism of one by the other considerably less likely. Also, in parliamentary system, the lack of checks and balances means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered.

Speed and Decisiveness:
A president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. Presidential systems can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones. A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a president is often less constrained.

Stability:
A president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister, who can be dismissed at any time. Although most parliamentary governments go long periods of time without a no confidence vote. Also, in parliamentary systems we have multiple parties, and governments are forced to rely on coalitions, which is the case of current PTI Govt. And we have seen how brutally Khan as PM gets blackmailed by his own allies. This wouldn't be the case in presidential system.

That being said, I am not saying that my opinion is 1000% right, but this is something hasn't tried in Pakistan yet, therefore, naturally its a option on the table. And you wouldn't know if it will succeed of fail until you try it, because as I said nth times, neither parliamentary system has delivered nor it will do in future in Pakistan.
 
Totally agree but few things need to be done if presidential system going to work. It should be tier system with direct election.
The draw back in our current system is lack of local govt system which directly effect and deal with people. Plus the party system is the route cause of corruption where you have to blindly support your party even its doing something wrong against public which need to be ended.
Tier 1: Direct election of councillor for each council
Tier 2: Direct election of senator for each district and candidate must be a councillor. Who had previously served the public, so no one can bypass/hijack/planted as senator.
Tier 3: Direct election of President who must be a senator and again Who had previously served the public, so no one can bypass/hijack/planted as president.

There is no need for governor in this system as it divides the unity of country. Pakistan need to be run on districts bases. All states must be abolished and divided into multiple districts. The the smaller unit the more efficiently it will be run and more easier it would be to spend resources on public. State system have neglected many areas of larger states. Examples are south Punjab, upper belt of sindh, lower belt of Balochistan and western belt of kpk.
This solution can be reversed for parliamentary system as well by keeping the presidential system for checks and balances. Where Senate will pass laws and it will be the job of parliament to implement them.

These are three core pillars of a state, legislature, judiciary & executive. The biggest problem is executives (Govt) have severe influence on judiciary. Just checkout how LHC, IHC, PHC & SHC functions and who runs to them to get the relieve.

Furthermore, where power gets exercise? At the police station, at Govt institutes i.e. Passport office, Nadra etc . And we all know how things work in Pakistan, how much corrupt said institutes and departs are and how politician's use their influence on them. I wouldn't be wrong if I call this a mafia, which consist of corrupt bureaucrat, crook politician and feudal lord's - this is your so called status quo.

Coming on legislature, in Pakistan parliament has the power to do the legislation (as you said), however, what laws have they proposed or enforced for the betterment of the people who elect them? Answer is none! Its utterly needless to say even a word what happens in senate and how people got elected. By definition the constitution of a country sets a broad framework in which to make laws, rules and regulations to organise the life of the people, at both the collective and the individual levels. I dont see this happen in parliament.

Politicians of Pakistan are NOT the representation of the civilians. They dont know or care about the issues of civilians, heck they even tried to jeopardize CPEC at some point.

More to the point, NAB's plea bargain is nothing but a joke. What message does it broadcast? It encourages me to indulge myself in corruption, because I know I can offer some portion of that money to NAB and make it totally legit - PLAIN WRONG !!!

Due to all the above and similar details, I strongly believe that parliamentary system hasn't delivered in Pakistan, neither it will in coming years, because this system is rotten to the core and have been hijacked by crook's. The way politicians come in power is "rule by law" AND NOT "rule of law" - there is a massive, massive difference in between both. They make rules to aid and support themselves and their corruption. Pakistan's electoral system is utterly flawed.

That said, I only tried to highlight some of the glaring problem current constitution possesses, which I dont want to see in any shape or form.



Why people (myself is included) are paddling for presidential system is because of the following:

Direct Elections:
In a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people. In most presidential systems, the president is elected by either popular vote or by an electoral college. This way, the president receives a personal mandate to lead the country, whereas in a parliamentary system a candidate might only receive a personal mandate to represent a constituency. That means a president can only be elected independently of the legislative branch.

Separation of Powers:
A presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. This allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses of power.

A presidential system’s separation of the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinize the actions of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, making criticism of one by the other considerably less likely. Also, in parliamentary system, the lack of checks and balances means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered.

Speed and Decisiveness:
A president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. Presidential systems can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones. A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a president is often less constrained.

Stability:
A president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister, who can be dismissed at any time. Although most parliamentary governments go long periods of time without a no confidence vote. Also, in parliamentary systems we have multiple parties, and governments are forced to rely on coalitions, which is the case of current PTI Govt. And we have seen how brutally Khan as PM gets blackmailed by his own allies. This wouldn't be the case in presidential system.

That being said, I am not saying that my opinion is 1000% right, but this is something hasn't tried in Pakistan yet, therefore, naturally its a option on the table. And you wouldn't know if it will succeed of fail until you try it, because as I said nth times, neither parliamentary system has delivered nor it will do in future in Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Before ending them they must end military dictatorship and involvment in ploitics
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom