Presidential V/s Parliamentary form of Government

This is a recent constitutional debate.

Basic Differences:
Parliamentary Presidential
Head of the Prime Minister President
Government
Head of the state President President
Election Method of Parliament Public vote called
head of popular vote
Government
E.g. India, Pakistan etc US, Turkey etc
Removal method Vote of no Impeachment
confidence
Removal votes Simple majority 2/3rd
(50% + 1)
Removal procedure Non Proper procedure
Removal charges Non Must
Requirement for Must be MNA May or may not be
head of the MNA
Government
Constitution of 1956, 1973 1962
Pakistan
Merits v/s Demerits of Parliamentary form of government:
Merits Demerits
Not direct
Mandate
Inclusive form of Can be removed
government i.e. with simple
even smaller majority hence
parties get a unstable
portion government
Less prone to Prone to
blackmail as a blackmailing by
whole as majority coalition
party is ruling party parties/partners
within parliament
For heterogeneous Less choice to
societies i.e. select his
consisting of ministerial team as
various societies the members are
limited to 342
Government is not People don’t elect
under one person the PM the MNA’s
(Mustafa Impex do
case)
Every province gets Promotes politics
equal participation of electable
Constituency
power and politics
Does not promote
electoral politics

Merits v/s demerits of Presidential form of government:

Merits Demerits
Direct Mandate
Stable government Prone to autocratic
as president cannot tendencies i.e. does
be removed with not listen to
simple majority anyone
Immune/less prone Prone to legislative
to blackmailing by deadlock i.e.
coalition president from one
parties/partners party and assembly
from another
Wider discretion of President can use
the president to his discretion to
choose his appoint non merit
ministerial team people
and if he uses this
power to elect
proper people this
will be his merit
People elect the Exclusive form of
government hence government
they are important
Discourages the President will be
politics of electable from homogenous
society i.e.
president will
always be from
Punjab in Pakistan
No Constituency Prone to nepotism
power and politics
Promotes electoral Government is
politics grounded under one person
upon manifestos

Prone to budgetary
deadlocks
It is evident from what has been discussed in the preceding
discussion that presidential form of government provides an
administratively strong and stable government whereas the
parliamentary form of government is politically more viable to
heterogeneous societies such as Pakistan. However the fact
remains that parliamentary form of government has not come
up to the expectations of the people of Pakistan. But a
meaningful analysis reveals that the problems actually lies in
the political culture of Pakistan which serves as a hurdle in
success of parliamentary system. The parliamentary system is
successfully operating in number of countries including those
situated and located in neighborhood of Pakistan. The problems
in political culture of Pakistan include
 Corruption
 Hereditary politics
 Weak political parties
 Unprincipled politics
 Lack of accountability effective
Only to name but a few. The parliamentary system can also
deliver in Pakistan if the problems or the evils ailing political
culture of Pakistan are eliminated.
Basic Terminologies:
 Vote of no confidence: For PM to be in his/her office he
needs the confidence/majority of his MNA’s and if that
isn’t there he is liable to be removed through vote of no
confidence by simple majority. There is no need for a
charge and can simply say we don’t trust him. In
presidential the president can’t be removed by simple
majority and needs a legal reason. In this case it’s called
impeachment. It has full procedures. In America a
resolution has to be passed which has to be moved with
2/3rd majority. After this it will go to senate which will be
headed by America Chief Justice who if accepts it will
result in the end of the president.
 Head of the government and Head of the state: Usually in
parliamentary the head of the government is PM and head
of state is president. In presidential the president is both.
However it is also possible in some cases like SA where
there is parliamentary form of government but the
president is both the head of the state and the head of the
government as he is elected by the parliament.
 Why President is needed in parliamentary form of
government? There was a time in British History that the
power was with the King. However then a struggle began
due to which the power was transferred from the King to
the people. A time was there when House of lords was
most powerful based on aristocracy that is why was known
 as upper house. House of Commons belonged to the
people hence was known as Lower house. Slowly as the
power got transferred from the king to the people a time
came when the king became subject of the law. However
this position wasn’t removed as it was a symbol of the
struggle which made the king bow down to the people.
Secondly you also need a head/position that does not have
any power and is symbol of sovereignty and is non-
controversial.
 Semi Presidential: In which the president is headed
directly who is the head of the state and has executive
powers but some of his powers are shared with the PM
who is elected by the parliament e.g. France, Russia etc.
 Governor General v/s President: In countries where the
head of the state can’t remain e.g. Queen Elizabeth who is
the head of the state of Canada, England etc but stays in
England hence her representative in Canada is called
Governor General. In countries where the head of the state
can remain is called president.
 Electable: This phenomenon dates back to before Pakistan

who consist of the people who get elected in general

elections in the parliamentary form of government. This in
turn leads to constituency power i.e. the people who win
from a specific constituency and are from the winning
party are in power. They tend to dominate politics and
hence their constituencies develop more whereas the
constituency which elected members from non-winning
parties do not develop as a form of punishment.