Should Pakistan take "inspiration" from American style presidential system?

[PakLeader]

For people agreeing with me for presidential democracy - this is a genuine issue with this style of democracy
@KaiserX ,@Meliodas ,@Deltadart @PakLeader , @fitpOsitive ,@JackTheRipper @Erroroverload

"Imagine if the parliament has a majority from one party and president is from a different party > there will be complete dead lock in the government, nothing will get done."

till we figure out a solution for this problem we shouldn't/cant take presidential system a viable option
I personally am also confused with this fault in presidential system

There are alot of solutions to this, many can be procedural and technical...it all comes down to establishment of rules and procedures as to how to handle conflict or deadlock in different circumstances. As a reminder the role of parliament in a presidential system is to pass laws and legislate only. Not make policy or have any administrative authority which is the presidents responsibility.

To keep it simple, the parliamentary and presidential elections will be held at the same time and same term whether for 4 or 5 years. People will be voting for the president and MNA at thr same time and most likely they will vote for the same party. It's unlikely that in such a setup the the president and parliamentary majority are from different parties. In the unlikely event they are, yes there maybe challenges but nothing that can't be managed via rules and procedures established in the constitution. Remember we are not looking to implement a U.S style system nor would I ever recommend that. People look at the U.S system and think all presidential systems are like that or the U.S system is some sort of gold standard. It is not. The U.S presidential system works for the U.S and U.S alone and developed based on their unique history and circumstances. To transplant that to any other country would simply create a mess, just like we have with our current system. A Presidential system for Pakistan is needed urgently and will be based on our own history, experiences, successes and failures with governance. The system will fit our needs and work for us not be measured against any other system. We can learn from others and adapt but in the end the solution will be our own and unique.

 

[Indos]

For people agreeing with me for presidential democracy - this is a genuine issue with this style of democracy
@KaiserX ,@Meliodas ,@Deltadart @PakLeader , @fitpOsitive ,@JackTheRipper @Erroroverload

"Imagine if the parliament has a majority from one party and president is from a different party > there will be complete dead lock in the government, nothing will get done."

till we figure out a solution for this problem we shouldn't/cant take presidential system a viable option
I personally am also confused with this fault in presidential system

If we see the situation in Indonesia with multiple parties system and Presidential system, the death lock on parliament usually not happen. Since we have used simple majority vote to elect President, then there should be more than one Presidential election that need to happen if in the first election no body has more than 50 % votes, unless if the candidates since the beginning only two.

There will be coalition made before the voting takes place, so it will be 2 strong coalitions being made. Due to Indonesian society and leaders are not too divided so usually any winner in Presidential election will seduce other party to join into the government by giving the seats of Minister, they usually join.

Just like what happen during SBY and Jokowi administration, the government have majority seats in parliament. Even for Jokowi it is around 80 % after he makes Prabowo, his rival on Election join the coalition.

Presidential election and Parliament election also are always held in the same time or just 2-6 months different. It is either in the same time like previous election or the parliament election is first, so coalition can be made based on current political powers. USA in the other way make parliament election ( congress and senators) about 2 years after the President election, this US system will make opposition is likely to win the parliament election just like what happen in US system and US only has 2 parties system that make the situation getting worst. It is because as usual, 2 year after President take the office, the popularity is usually going down, as people havent seen much improvement after the retoric made during election. It is just after the third year when many works bring significant result then President popularity is raising again.

We dont have strong senate like in USA either, governing process only needs two institutions, President and his/her ministers (executive) and Parliament members. Senators in Indonesian system are only for consultative matter, they dont have power like in USA.

No electoral college either in Indonesia system.

US system and Christianity

US system is designed not to have too strong executive power (President). I think religion is the reason ( influence) where Christianity as the main religion of white American has Trinity concept. Power is shared between Father (God), Son (Jesus), and Holly Spirit. Christian was still quite strong during early American, we can see from the women dress during that period.

Islam system

Islam on the other way has more stress on stronger leader as we only have one very powerful God. But for human, God told the system should be based on consultative with the people (Democracy), see Surah As-Shura (Quran). It is then reflected during early Caliphate system where 4 Caliphate has very strong powers and tribes are the parliament (Anshar tribe and Quraish (Muhajirin (Quraish who move to Madinah before Mecca is conquered) as the main parliament power).

Chaliphate is just Arabic name, in essence it is very close to President where Caliphate is chosen, hold a powerful position, not based on blood as Kingdomship, and consultative power is still exist despite at that time not yet modern and institutionalized.

The reason Chalipate is not continued after Ali Bin Abi Thalib is due to the system is very traditional and not making the consultative element (as ordered by God) strong enough. This then make people who have power can challenge the President by military means, something that should not happen if they created strong consultative body as suggested in Quran ( Surah As-Syura (Consultation) )

 

[peagle]

I think it is clear to anybody with reason why the current system does not work and has failed. A long disertation is hardly needed. I would say the exact same to you. Rather than blowing hot air, let's hear your arguments about why the current system works and how wonderful it is rather than supporting the status quo.

I think it would be better not to turn personal and just argue the point. You cannot discuss under an assumed truth, that would be ridiculous, so no it is not clear.

I have already made my points very clear, and it is YOU who answered to my post, and it is reasonable for me to expect a clear reply. You created a post full of complaints that did not make sense, I just asked for clarification. That is extremely fair, you can do that without submitting a dissertation, since you feel so strongly about this, surely you must have few concentrated valid arguments.

It is the complainant who has to clarify the complaint before it can be responded to with clarity.

 

[peagle]

Which political ideology do the political parties subscribe to?

What political and native discourse brought about that ideology? If not, then what differentiates these parties?

Whose interests do they represent?

What is the social contract that binds all in a common cause?

I love this, piecemeal is indeed the correct approach.

Since you have raised the questions, and it is your complaint, surely you should answer what your problem or complaint is with regards to the existing system.

Please start by answer your own queries, plus the questions I had raised to your post, which you did not answer, and we'll take it from there.

Below is my quoted objection to your initial post.
Please respond to those and the questions you raised for this discussion, and we can continue.

"What you describe is essentially part of every single form of governance, it is a reality of life, reality of governance, reality of society.
Those issues will, and do exist in one form or another in every kind of governance that has ever existed. So, how is it relevant as a criticism for the parliamentary form of governance?

Plus, you have not clearly stated which form of government you would support and why, and how it would be different from the parliamentary system."

 

[waqasmwi]

I think US style democracy is one of the best in the world from governance presepctive and for the most part is very beneficial to small states and Thier rights

American Presidential system
View attachment 810377
View attachment 810378
View attachment 810379
Phillipines and Latin America also follows this style of governance

Philippines is doing good to decent while Latin America is stagenent (I think drugs, US hegemony made it that way)

But corruption becomes a huge problem in this system

NO

 

[Genghis khan1]

American system is a joke, it only works because they've become used to it.
It is based on strong checks and balances, these are central to the system, but useless in practice.

There have been a number of times, the candidate with fewer votes won the election >> imagine what would happen in Pakistan.

The president is elected by an electoral college, there have been times when these electors have changed their allegiance > this is the same as Ayubs basic democrats, open to complete manipulation.

Their supreme court judges are appointed for life > imagine if Iftikhar Chaudary types being appointed for life.

Imagine if the parliament has a majority from one party and president is from a different party > there will be complete dead lock in the government, nothing will get done.

lol there are so many examples to show why it is unsuitable, it is a silly system only suitable for America, it will create nothing but instability in Pakistan.


Pakistan has a perfectly good system, but all systems are always evolving, keep making small changes, and over time it will improve.

If we continue to demand drastic change, we will never achieve stability. This is a crazy demand, that keeps getting repeated every few years. but remember, no system is perfect, it will be the same people running it. The best thing is to just keep one system and keep making small changes over time.

Parliamentary system is inclusive, it gives everyone a say and so many other benefits that are not available in a presidential form of government.

Agree issue isn’t system but the people themselves. US has strong establishment that runs system behind the scene. Pakistan ko monarchy type ruler chay, jo Dubai ki tarhain swift decision on implement kry.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

I love this, piecemeal is indeed the correct approach.

Since you have raised the questions, and it is your complaint, surely you should answer what your problem or complaint is with regards to the existing system.

Please start by answer your own queries, plus the questions I had raised to your post, which you did not answer, and we'll take it from there.

Below is my quoted objection to your initial post.
Please respond to those and the questions you raised for this discussion, and we can continue.

"What you describe is essentially part of every single form of governance, it is a reality of life, reality of governance, reality of society.
Those issues will, and do exist in one form or another in every kind of governance that has ever existed. So, how is it relevant as a criticism for the parliamentary form of governance?

Plus, you have not clearly stated which form of government you would support and why, and how it would be different from the parliamentary system."

Indeed.
And, why not?
In fact I'll spell it for you
--C--
--U--
--T--
--E--
Cute!

 

[KaiserX]

For people agreeing with me for presidential democracy - this is a genuine issue with this style of democracy
@KaiserX ,@Meliodas ,@Deltadart @PakLeader , @fitpOsitive ,@JackTheRipper @Erroroverload

"Imagine if the parliament has a majority from one party and president is from a different party > there will be complete dead lock in the government, nothing will get done."

till we figure out a solution for this problem we shouldn't/cant take presidential system a viable option
I personally am also confused with this fault in presidential system

Its simple do what france does. Have all the Federal/State/local elections at the same time via singular top down ballot. Will help ensure whoever gets a majority in the assemby also gets the presidency.

The reason why one party will be majority in parliament vs the president is because in the US parliament elections are every 2 years. Usually 2 years after the president is selected the opposite party wins the house. This is the norm in like 75% of cases.

 

[peagle]

Agree issue isn’t system but the people themselves. US has strong establishment that runs system behind the scene. Pakistan ko monarchy type ruler chay, jo Dubai ki tarhain swift decision on implement kry.

Sorry yaar, there is no need for a drastic change.
Stick with one system, and keep making improvements, that is how every mature nation has evolved, it is a simple formula, it is the only formula that works.

Indeed.
And, why not?
In fact I'll spell it for you
--C--
--U--
--T--
--E--
Cute!

Cute, you are.
Time to grow up, silly child.

 

[mdmm]

To Stop Corruption, election rigging and political affiliations of court judges, news media,
Presidential system is perfect for Pakistan, now.
In the past presidential system was not successfull, because it was not installed in full ,at all levels.

 

[Meliodas]

For people agreeing with me for presidential democracy - this is a genuine issue with this style of democracy
@KaiserX ,@Meliodas ,@Deltadart @PakLeader , @fitpOsitive ,@JackTheRipper @Erroroverload

"Imagine if the parliament has a majority from one party and president is from a different party > there will be complete dead lock in the government, nothing will get done."

till we figure out a solution for this problem we shouldn't/cant take presidential system a viable option
I personally am also confused with this fault in presidential system

That's an extreme example which is believe is unlikely, however in the cases where this may be plausible the "majority" will not be simple majority. Pakistani parliament system doesn't make sense to me, senate and NA existence is based on dividing the populace in elite and peasants whereas the current demography has given birth to another strata the middle income. Senates only use as of now is to help brokers of power or to delay/ disrupt law making. On the chief executive side we have prime minister and president, here again borrowing ( better if I say blindly following with botched makeup), we have 2 centres of power and they keep fighting with each other. UK for years have trashed the powers of monarchy for good and just keep it for the sake of emotional attachment and pride, Pakistan holds a ceremonial position for no benefit even intangible one.

Here, a major change is required in the governing structure that is in line with the domestic realities. Introducing presidential system or creating new provinces and packages won't cut it. What's needed is a complete overhaul of parliament and transfer of power at divisional level.
Unless it's done there is no way Pakistan will prosper, heck here MPs ashirbad is required even to construct a as street drain and he takes pride in that.

 

[CatSultan]

Without decentralization of power no system can deliver in the longer run .

if power is decentralized then nothing gets done

 

[Falconless]

and their is no family politics in US

Kennedy Family?

The pariamentary system we copied from the Indian's has done nothing for us in the last 60

A bit disingenuous as we haven’t had 15 years of constant parliamentary rule yet.

What's needed is a complete overhaul of parliament and transfer of power at divisional level.

Adding to that we need to rethink our senate, while making sure our federating units have an equal say in the legislative process, but right now it’s just a room full of dying politicians on their way to irrelevance.

Secondly together with devolution down to the district/neighbourhood. We need to recentrialize several policy making processes so that Pakistan doesn’t get lost.

Things that need to be centralised are, Transport, Standards, Environment, Agriculture, Educational, Law Enforcement and Taxation to name a few.

 

[JackTheRipper]

Kennedy Family?


A bit disingenuous as we haven’t had 15 years of constant parliamentary rule yet.


Adding to that we need to rethink our senate, while making sure our federating units have an equal say in the legislative process, but right now it’s just a room full of dying politicians on their way to irrelevance.

Secondly together with devolution down to the district/neighbourhood. We need to recentrialize several policy making processes so that Pakistan doesn’t get lost.

Things that need to be centralised are, Transport, Standards, Environment, Agriculture, Educational, Law Enforcement and Taxation to name a few.

You are not understanding my point,
Then Hilary Clinton also tried to become president, like Clinton,

You can see majority of their president not came on family basis, if only few came, it does not mean parties are became like PPP, PMLN and others.

 

[Falconless]

You are not understanding my point,
Then Hilary Clinton also tried to become president, like Clinton,

You can see majority of their president not came on family basis, if only few came, it does not mean parties are became like PPP, PMLN and others.

We have only had uninterrupted parliamentary rule for less then 15 years and already PMLN and PPP are on a decline, give it time the system will flush the crooks out.