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.
) and I still see people here whining about - Oh, Khan has filled PTI with old ppp and pmln garbage, idiots.
