ASSIGNMENT TOPIC

COMPARISON OF 1956 AND 1962 CONSTITUTION

“PRESIDENTIAL VS PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT IN PAKISTAN”

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

SUBMITTED TO
PROF.AHMAD ALI KHAN

SUBMITTED BY
JUNAID IQBAL
01-177162-010
INTRODUCTION:
A government is the system or group of people governing an organized
community, often a state. There have been number of government systems
up till now. These include absolutism, anarchy, autonomy, autocracy,
colonialism, communism, federalism, republican, presidential and
parliamentary forms of government. In today’s world most of the states
have either presidential system or parliamentary system. A presidential
system is a democratic and republican government in which a head of
government leads executive branch that is separate from the legislative
branch. Head of government is also the head of state, which is called
president. In presidential countries, the executive is elected and is not
responsible to the legislature, which cannot in normal circumstances
dismiss it. Such dismissal is possible through impeachment. The common
example of presidential government system is UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
A parliamentary system or parliamentary democracy is a system of
democratic governance of a state where executive derives its democratic
legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the legislature,
typically a parliament, and is also held accountable to that parliament. In a
parliamentary system, the head of state is usually a person distinct from
the head of government. Parliamentarianism is the dominant form of
government in Europe, with 32 of its 50 sovereign states being
parliamentarian. The best example of parliamentary form of government is
GREAT BRITAIN.

Pakistan has been under the system of both the presidential and
parliamentary forms of government. Different constitutions were made in
different era according to the parliamentary and presidential type of
system of government. The constitution of 1956 was made on the basis of
parliamentary form of government and constitution of 1962 was made on
the basis of presidential form of government.
COMPARISON OF 1956 AND 1962 CONSTITUTION OF
PAKISTAN :
Constitution of 1956 introduced parliamentary form of government while
the constitution of 1962 introduced presidential form of government.
Constitution of 1956 introduced direct election while constitution of 1962
introduced indirect election. Most of the executive powers were vested in
the Prime Minister in the 1956 constitution whereas most of the executive
powers were exercised by the President in 1962 constitution. Constitution
of 1956 contains three lists of subjects that is federal, provincial and the
concurrent matter. Constitution of 1962 provided only two subjects that is
central and provincial matter.
The Prime Minister is elected through parliament which is directly elected
by the people in 1956 constitution. The president is elected through Basic
Democracies members directly according to 1962 constitution of Pakistan.
The head of state is President in 1956 constitution whereas head of
government is Prime Minister. The president, in 1962 constitution is head
of government as well as head of state. The executive powers are with
Prime Minister while President had ceremonial stature along with very
few powers in 1956 constitution while President had all the powers under
1962 constitution.

ADVANTAGES OF PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF

GOVERNMENT:
1. It offers checks and balances.
Each branch of government in a parliamentary system is governed by a
system of checks and balances. That reduces the chances of one branch
being able to overpower others when pursuing legislation.

2. It supports a diverse range of opinions.

A true majority within a parliamentary system is rare. That is because
anyone can form their own political party to run for office. That means
smaller parties tend to work together to form a coalition, which supports
more opinions than a standard party platform would.
3. It allows for an election to be called.
Elections can be called within a parliamentary system by the people or
those who were elected. That makes it easier for the people to call for a
change if they feel like their elected officials are not performing as they
should be.
4. The parliamentary system is more emphasis of centre of power in
parliament. The parliament becomes more focus and the Prime Minister
gets more importance. Usually, the parliamentary government enables the
participation of all political elements represented in the legislature.

5. The parliamentary system enables the elected members to seriously

debate on the matter at hand which would result in better outcome for the
general welfare at large. Members are responsible and accountable to the
people.
6. The powers are divided among different branches of the government.
Power is not being centralized which results in proficiency and better
results in terms of the performance of the government.
7. It allows for quick and easy passage for the piece of legislation.
A parliamentary system can make the passage of legislation faster through
the support of a legislative body. This is because the executive is elected
into office according to the party’s manifesto. As a result, the will of the
people has more power than any political system.

DISADVANTAGES:
1. It does not offer as much representation on a direct level. Individual
regions don’t receive the amount of representation in this form of
democracy. This happens because coalition is formed, making difficult for
the politicians to be held accountable for their personal conduct.

2. It allows legislation to be passed without minority approval. The

coalition that gets true majority has the power to do what they wish, pass
any kind of legislation without the approval of minority. It happened in
UK that the opposition does not have power to create more balanced
legislation. The majority can even ignore them if it suits them.
3. It allows the legislation to vote for the head of state or prime minister
and not the electorate .In a parliamentary democracy, an electorate is not
required for the head of state or prime minister. Aside from that, even
before the legislation could pick the head of the government, there is
already a degree of certainty as to who will win because of the party’s
campaigns.

4. It is often unstable. When governance is challenged by minority,

unstable coalitions and the like, this form of government could become
unstable. Although many proponents contend that political culture, highly
polarized votes and proportional representation all cause instability in a
government, the practice of flexible election scheduling in a parliamentary
and a ruling party delaying elections could also destabilize the
government.

ADVANTAGES OF PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT:

1. In most presidential systems, the president is elected by popular vote.
By this method, 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.
2. 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. A formal condemnation of the executive by the
legislature is often considered a vote of no confidence. According to
supporters of the presidential system, the lack of checks and balances
means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered.

3. Some supporters of presidential systems say that 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.
4. Many people consider presidential systems more able to survive
emergencies. A country under enormous stress may, supporters argue, be
better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating
premierships.
The fact that elections are fixed in a presidential system is considered by
supporters a welcome "check" on the powers of the executive, contrasting
parliamentary systems, which may allow the prime minister to call
elections whenever they see fit or orchestrate their own vote of no
confidence to trigger an election when they cannot get a legislative item
passed. The presidential model is said to discourage this sort of
opportunism, and instead forces the executive to operate within the
confines of a term they cannot alter to suit their own needs.

DISADVANTAGES:
1. The. president may flout public opinion with impunity due to the
president has full of powers to the government. As example, state that
implemented this system is United States, the American president
continued to support war in Vietnam in spite of popular opposition to this
policy in United State.

2. As we know, in presidential system citizen can choose their own

president through election. Then, though the president is elected by the
people but members of his cabinet may not be elected. This procedure
makes the government undemocratic.

3. Not being responsible to the legislature. The government in a

presidential form becomes irresponsible to the people. The president and
his cabinet are not responsible to the legislature in this form of
government. So, no questions may be asked about their performance or
activities or they can be condemned
4 .In presidential system, the executive is isolated from the legislature and
others. So, different organs of the government that is the executives, the
legislature and the judiciary will lack of harmony and communication to
each other due to being completely independent of each other. The
separation of powers in the presidential form a government indicates a
limited level of accountability and the legislature and executives end up
blaming each other
5. Presidential system might create gridlock and stalemates within the
government. One example of this could be if the president continues to
veto bills that the legislature ratifies, impeding government from passing
laws. This can be seen in 1995 when Democrat Bill Clinton was president
with a Republican controlled Congress. The government could not get
consensus on anything, not even one budget.

BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR PAKISTAN:

Specifically discussing the form of government and system to run that
government in Pakistan, it is the parliamentary system. In case of Pakistan
there is parliamentarian system whereas the system belongs to two houses,
the upper house and lower house known as the senate and national
assembly respectively.

Analyzing the post Musharaf era, the parliamentary system has been
endorsed in the political club of Pakistan. In the last years of Pakistan
People Party, the then President Asif Ali Zardari dissolve the extra
presidential powers which were embedded in the article 90 and article 52B
of the constitution of 1973. Now in the current government, the position of
president is just a cog in the wheel. The whole 18th amendment took the
power from the president to dissolve the assemblies, unilaterally, turning
Pakistan from a semi-presidential to a parliamentary republic. The whole
amendment was done to restore the political stability in Pakistan.
Whenever there is a structural change it comes with positive and negative
outputs. The only ease after dissolving powers of the president of Pakistan
was devolution of power in both upper and lower houses. Another
dilemma which is being faced by the 18th amendment was the sharing of
power between both houses. Hypothetically if a bill passed in the national
assembly and got rejected in the Senate, it again bypasses the authority of
Senate as National Assembly has more representatives than the Senate.
Logically it is absurd, upper house (Senate) means that it has more power
than National Assembly (lower house) but in practice, National Assembly
enjoys more powers than the Senate.
Analyzing both systems, the Presidential system is far better than for
Pakistan rather than the parliamentarian system. In the parliamentarian
system, the representation of whole Pakistan is somehow could not be
represented. In the parliamentarian system, there is a concept that who so
ever province will be having more population will form the government.
Making it simple, in context of Pakistan whoever will win from Punjab
will form his government. Whereas the National Finance Commission
Award is another blessing, some argue that NFC award should be divided
by the population, whereas some reiterated that NFC award should be
dealt on the basis of resources and some contend this view and demands
that NFC award should be divided on revenue generation. For instance
Karachi is generating 80% of revenue hence major chunk of the budget
should be invested in Karachi. These are the predicaments of the
parliamentarian system.

CONCLUSION:
Whereas all these things are present in the Presidential system, although
major reforms are required for the Presidential system in Pakistan.
Presidents should be the sole man with supreme authority and he should
be sharing the power with Senate only. Whereas the Senate representatives
should be selected by the General Elections. Every state should be having
an equal number of seats so the representation should be on an equality.
When all the senators would have been selected then there should be a
general election through which President should be selected for the nation
of Pakistan. This equal representation will sort out the issue of NFC and
would have sustained all those separatist movements who are turning the
nation into faltering and fumbling disposition. Moreover, when there
would be equality in the provinces, Punajbis would not be considered a
threat to Pashtoons, there will be no rift between Pashtoons and Balochis
and Urdu speaking people would not be called and cornered as migrants•
of Pakistan. The ethnic political culture is devastating for Pakistan
whereas it was planted in Pakistan since its inception. These reforms
should be followed in order to make Pakistan more progressive and
sustained.
REFERENCES:
https://www.academia.edu.pk

https://www.scribd.com
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-
law/advantages-of-the-presidential-system

Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan by HAMID KHAN.

http://www.cpsd.org.pk/blog-17.php