Pakistan: Presidential or Parliamentary System?

[longbrained]

What do you think? Which system is better for Pakistani political culture? I know both are successful systems in different countries but in Pakistan wherein corruption and nepotism is in charge, which system has the capacity to deliver more?

Currently in Pakistan's parliamentary system, the parliament has both the executive and legislative character. In presidential system, parliament is only a legislative body and all executive power would be with one person that is president.

Please take time and discuss.


Here is a article with regard to Imran Khan: Imran Khan’s nemesis: The Parliamentary system – The Express Tribune Blog

Do you think, that the next government in Pakistan should attempt to change the constitution and make Pakistan a presidential system? (with two elections, one for parliament and one for people directly electing a president)

 

[zip]

You had both
parliamentary : when democracy ruled
presidential : when people allowed chief of army to rule
so both are tried

 

[muse]

LongBrain

Does your question about Parliament or President suggest that the Pakistani constitution should be revisited - did you think that a premier as the primary legislative and executive authority under the Presidency, is something that Pakistan should adopt in the constitution?

 

[longbrained]

LongBrain

Does your question about Parliament or President suggest that the Pakistani constitution should be revisited - did you think that a premier as the primary legislative and executive authority under the Presidency, is something that Pakistan should adopt in the constitution?

Primarily, yes, the constitution has to be amended to change the system. What I had in mind was complete separation of legislative and executive branch. The presidency being elected by a direct vote of the public from a list of candidates put forward by all registered political parties. There will be a separate election for the parliament. My idea would be something like this:

1- President is elected for a five year terms with one re-election possible.

2- President can not be removed easily from power. The only mechanism to remove him would be if Supreme court decides this and forwards a "proposal" to parliament. In parliament, there should be a 80% vote for his removal and the senate should endorse it as well. Only then the president can be removed, which under ordinary conditions is going to be very very difficult. The parliament itself can not initiate removal process.

3- President is elected for five years term. The parliament members are going to be elected for a two years term. The parliament is full of scum and a shorter term would assure that it is going to remain cleaner.

4- President is going to be both chief executive as well as the commander in chief. All laws passed in parliament which pass with a lesser vote than 2/3 majority have to be signed by the president before becoming law.

5- President will have complete control over the budget and its planning. Only a 2/3 majority vote in parliament would be able to stop a budget for a review by a parliamentary commission.

6- President will have a complete say over foreign affairs issue and only a 3/4 majority vote in parliament would have authority over a presidential decision in foreign affairs issues.

7- President chooses the chief justice for a three year term.

I believe such a system has more benefit for Pakistan. Such a president will be very powerful and would not need to do under the table deals to remain in power as the current PM's do. All he cares about is going to be the people's popular vote for re-election and making a history for himself.

Also it is very easier for people to vote in a powerful president of their choice who is not corrupt and who can get things done without having to deal with corrupt people. Right now even if people elect a non-corrupt MNA, he is powerless to bring any change.

 

[muse]

Wouldn't this give the judiciary a role over the executive? Be careful what you wish for?

And What about the parliament AKA legislative branch -- what should be it's role? for instance, what is it's primary function? Is it making and refining laws?? And what about their immunity from the law and their control over finances??

 

[longbrained]

Wouldn't this give the judiciary a role over the executive? Be careful what you wish for?

And What about the parliament AKA legislative branch -- what should be it's role? for instance, what is it's primary function? Is it making and refining laws?? And what about their immunity from the law and their control over finances??

No, not really. Chief justice is just going to advise the parliament. And winning a 4/5 majority in parliament and senate is not going to be an easy task unless there is some serious flaw with the president. And since Chief Justice is only for 3 years, and president has power over him/her when term is up. It is only for extreme circumstances if president goes out of control.

The only function of legislative is going to make and review laws and a sort of oversight over their implementation. Nothing more is needed of them.

Parliament members are not going to be immune from anything. Though presidency should be. Also president will get complete state protocol and security for the rest of his life. This is necessary to make him feel secured enough to make tough decisions without being afraid of future. Budget is going to completely under the control of president. Only a 2/3 vote in parliament can overturn a presidential budget plan.

I have thought about this alot. Pakistan is paralyzed because of a non-functioning political system. We need something better.

 

[lem34]

Agree constitution does need revisiting. Presidential system would be better in Pakistan. What about a one party system? What about a system not entirely based on popularity but also meritocracy?

 

[longbrained]

Agree constitution does need revisiting. Presidential system would be better in Pakistan. What about a one party system? What about a system not entirely based on popularity but also meritocracy?

I also think presidential system is going to be better for Pakistan. Though one party system is not going to do any good. The more parties the better, as it gives people choice. We need a very powerful president who is secured and protected even after retirement so he does not need to be scared to make tough decisions. And who is directly elected by people and only answerable to them. Meritocracy though attractive soon will become dictatorship as humans are fallible and will inevitably give in to their desires. It is better to have a democracy based on a set of laws and finite terms and elections.

 

[lem34]

I also think presidential system is going to be better for Pakistan. Though one party system is not going to do any good. The more parties the better, as it gives people choice. We need a very powerful president who is secured and protected even after retirement so he does not need to be scared to make tough decisions. And who is directly elected by people and only answerable to them. Meritocracy though attractive soon will become dictatorship as humans are fallible and will inevitably give in to their desires. It is better to have a democracy based on a set of laws and finite terms and elections.

Agree about the President/leader

Reason I stated one party system is not that I advocate communism but China seems to have been successful when compared to western versions of democracy say as tried in India.

Choice is meaningless whilst we retain the current feudal land holdings and lack of literacy etc. perhaps we could look at a 30 year plan which leads to choice as in western democracy.

Or perhaps we need to clear the decks first and start with a clean piece of paper.

We need radical ideas. I do not think vested interests will allow us to get far without violence and bloodshed

 

[longbrained]

Agree about the President/leader

Reason I sated one party system is not that I advocate communism but China seems to have been successful when compared to western versions of democracy say as tried in India.

Choice is meaningless whilst we retain the current feudal land holdings and lack of literacy etc. perhaps we could look at a 30 year plan which leads to choice as in western democracy.

Or perhaps we need to clear the decks first



Agree about the President/leader

Reason I sated one party system is not that I advocate communism but China seems to have been successful when compared to western versions of democracy say as tried in India.

Choice is meaningless whilst we retain the current feudal land holdings and lack of literacy etc. perhaps we could look at a 30 year plan which leads to choice as in western democracy.

Or perhaps we need to clear the decks first

I know what you are saying. But China is a hybrid communist/capitalist system. Pakistan has a different history and this would not work here. The best bet for Pakistan which is still a conservative Muslim state, is going to be a socialist democratic system based on Islamic values. As for feudalism, I fully agree. And nothing has helped feudal more than the parliament. A directly elected president would kill the feudal system. Right now so many MNA's are sitting there in parliament because they do not need city votes to be there. A president on the other hand will come in power from the votes of all the nation. As for education, things will not improve under the current parliamentary system at all as those MNA's are the executive branch as well and will never want for things to improve.

 

[muse]

Agree constitution does need revisiting. Presidential system would be better in Pakistan. What about a one party system? What about a system not entirely based on popularity but also meritocracy?

Can a one party system possible ( be effective) in Pakistan? I don't know if it can be effective, Pakistan is feudal, that means there are little prince or duke types around - only with a strong armed forces and police entirely under political control, perhaps -- too bad, because I am really beginning to doubt this whole "democracy" thing, at least on a provincial and national level, even though the only level it has impact to most people is at the local level.

And we have not discussed the most important element this all of this, the economic orientation of the state and society

 

[lem34]

The more I think about the system you are suggesting is tantamount to an elected dictator for a limited period?

Can a one party system possible ( be effective) in Pakistan? I don't know if it can be effective, Pakistan is feudal, that means there are little prince or duke types around

Well they have to be encouraged to renounce their "role". Be that involuntary or voluntary.

 

[Jango]

... Right now even if people elect a non-corrupt MNA, he is powerless to bring any change.

That's the whole flaw ain't it?

I like your ideas, but wouldn't we need a major overhaul of the whole system?

That would make the current benefactors really angry, and making a stiff opposition to this idea.

 

[lem34]

- only with a strong armed forces and police entirely under political control, perhaps --

I was suggesting a committee. Of course the head of the armed forces and police would be part of the committee. Make the senior officers part of the system.

even though the only level it has impact to most people is at the local level.

perhaps we need to revisit Zia's ideas without the bias on keeping him and his chosen ones in power with maybe slight modifications

 

[muse]

The more I think about the system you are suggesting is tantamount to an elected dictator for a limited period?



Well they have to be encouraged to renounce their "role". Be that involuntary or voluntary.

There must be "incentives" for this "transformation" - otherwise resistance will become obstacles and did I read longbrain say "socialism" and "islamic values" - what are those? more terrorism? If not terrorism, then what are those "Islamic values" what speciafically "islamic" about them?

I was suggesting a committee. Of course the head of the armed forces and police would be part of the committee. Make the senior officers part of the system.

perhaps we need to revisit Zia's ideas without the bias on keeping him and his chosen ones in power with maybe slight modifications

See the military officers are really part of that feudal set up - and it's not like they have not had multiple chances to get it right and instead they have weakened the armed forces - lets have them have a specialized role, nothing else