Presidential System

Advantages Disadvantages
Greater Legitimacy and Stable Government Potential for Autocracy
 Direct Elections  Greater Moral and Constitutional  Movement towards Authoritarian System and
Legitimacy Concentration of Power  Especially when
 Can’t be removed unless impeached legislature is dominated by the same party
 Serves as a bulwark against perpetual political upheavals
 Stable Functioning of Government  The rigidity of the presidential system office term
can create a profound suspicion of
Case Example:  No PM has been able to complete tenure in the personalization of power. A president can
Pakistan become a dictator with legislature’s help

Easy implementation of Policies Deadlocks  Less Efficiency

 Free from the influence of the party in daily routine  Especially when Executive and Legislature are
 He isn’t the Parliamentary Leader of any political party  dominated by different parties
Not responsible to Parliaments
 Freedom to carry out his policies without any political
pressure

Separation of Power Populism  Risky for Democratic Process

 Checks and Balances  Not responsible to anybody except the voters.
 Case Example  Trump and Modi  Can justify anything based on popular sentiments

Efficient Administration No Influence of Minority Parties

 Technocratic Cabinet  Members need not be MPs  It is considered a wasted vote if a vote is given to the
 Meritocratic Appointments third minority party, whereas in parliamentary
system, minority parties can also influence the
government (Case Example of US)

Better Executive Oversight Not Suitable for Diverse Countries like

 Legislature is in a better position to oversee the Pakistan
actions of the president and executive agencies.  President will always be from Punjab
 Case Example  Appropriations, Role of
Parliamentary Committees

Greater Responsiveness - Fast Decision Making

 President is the solely responsible  Fast Procedure

Parliamentary System
Greater Distribution of Executive Power Coalition makes implementation of programs
 Cabinet instead of single individual  More evenly difficult
spread out  Tends to be a higher focus on voting
for a party and its political ideas than voting for a  Hostage Situation
person

Notes by Muhammad Daud Saleemi (0306-6875141)

It minimizes political polarization Slow Decision Making

 Parliamentary Democracy provides opportunity by  Every single decision is made after a lot of discussion
forcing parties to work harmoniously together with partners and the whole party  Time consuming
 Government functionality increases when all
stakeholders agree  Coalition Government in
2018

It allows for quick and easy passage of Often Unstable

legislation
 Executive  Majority in Legislature  Unstable Coalitions
 The Practice of Flexible Elections could also
destabilize  Vote of No Confidence
 PM may lose their seats in parliament individually 
Disqualification of Nawaz Sharif
Representation of Minority Interests No True Separation of Powers
 3rd Parties  Cabinet System  No truly independent body to check Executive
 Parliament’s Bill can’t be vetoed either

It is more beneficial to nations with a racially, Little Opportunity for Demagogues to rise to the
ethnically or ideologically diverse population Top (+ve or –ve)
 Would have been impossible for Donald Trump to rise
 Even Distribution  People from different religions to the top of power in UK
or regions can part of the government, they can
raise their voice against any kind of partiality

Easy for New Parties to Enter
 Any group or organization can form a party or
coalition and then have its view represented in the
government.
 In the US, it can be difficult to gain any traction
 No 3rd Party has been able to gain significance
traction in Presidential election since 1992

Flexibility
 Election can be held/delayed depending upon need
 Theresa May called for new elections to get fresh
mandate
 US Elections during WW2 while elections in UK
were delayed

Critical Analysis with reference to Pakistan

 70 Years  Experienced both Systems  Neither has delivered to the satisfaction of the Majority
 Mainly because of faulty and self-centered implementation of the system  Not the system itself.

Notes by Muhammad Daud Saleemi (0306-6875141)

  Presidential Systems  Haunted by Lack of Legitimacy and Political Constituency  because of their
implementation by Martial Law governments
 Parliamentary Systems  No sharing of power with workers at grassroots level  Dynasties

Cons of Parliamentary System in Pakistan

1. Low Literacy Rate  No Mature LGs  Shortage of Suitable and Groomed Candidates
2. No Legislative Checks on the Executive
3. Selective/Populous Areas are chosen for Development
4. No Opportunity of Federal Leadership for smaller provinces
5. No Intra-Party Democracy
6. Political Dynasties
7. Increasing role of money in politics  Effectively denies honest and experienced people the opportunity
to participate thus depriving the country of their talent and contributions.
8. Limit Executive Posts to MPs
9. Role of Cast and Baradri System
10. Politics of Electables and Feudals
11. Weak National Level Political Parties  Conciliatory/Appeasement Politics due to coalitions
12. Horse Trading
 Gift of Parliamentary System  When one party doesn’t get decisive majority  Selling of Votes

Recommendations
1. Local Bodies
2. Cabinet of Technocrats
3. Senate should be empowered
4. Intra Party Democracy should be strengthened

Conclusion
 70 Years should be enough to evaluate the pros and cos of the systems we experienced
 Need of initiating a serious debate at various tiers across the country

Notes by Muhammad Daud Saleemi (0306-6875141)