Assignment Of Constitutional Development and Dynamics of Pakistan Politics.

Group members;
Aleena Saif Ullah
Roll no 05
Zunaira Majeed
Roll no 12
Nabiha Javed
Roll no 30.
BS Political Science (semester 08)

Topic: Parliamentary vs Presidential System.

Debate Over Forms Of Government:

Debate over the merits of the parliamentary or the presidential forms of government is as
old as democracy itself. The two models owe their origin to Great Britain and the United
States of America (USA) respectively and have spread to other countries of the
world. the parliamentary form of government in Great Britain had its beginnings in the
victory of Parliament were the Royalists and the beheading of King Charles. It was further
strengthened by the passing of the Bill of Rights in 1688 and the abdication of King James.
with the passage of time, the King (or the Queen) of England lost nearly all powers (in
practical terms) and became a figurehead only. The Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister,
became the true instrument of power. Development of the party system in Britain,
particularly the predominance of two major political parties greatly strengthened the
parliamentary system which became a model to follow in all those

Countries which had colonial ties with Great Britain at some point in time. That is why
countries like Australia, Canada, India, and New Zealand adopted it. It also served as a
model for countries in Europe when they became Republics after they had thrown
away the yoke of monarchy or dictatorship. Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Greece, Sweden,
Denmark, and Norway have all adopted the parliamentary form of government and have
made phenomenal material
Progress under this system. Japan, in Asia, also adopted the parliamentary system after its
defeat in the Second World War, in its Constitution of 1951.

The presidential form of government, as we understand it today, owes its origin to the
Constitution of the USA. On gaining independence after the expulsion of British colonists,
thirteen original States formed themselves into a confederation and adopted Articles of
Confederation. The arrangement of government under the confederation was loose and
weak, causing serious problems of governance and national solidarity. Finally, a
Constitutional Convention was called in 1787 which adopted a Federal Constitution for the
United States of America (USA) which has worked very successfully for more than two
hundred years.

This Constitution created a very powerful President in the dual role of

head of State and chief executive. The presidential system has given stability to the
government in the USA and the system has survived crucial times like the American Civil
War of 1861-65 and the two World Wars in the twentieth century. It has been
adopted in countries with strong American influence
like the Philippines and South Korea or by governments in countries of Central and South.
This Constitution provided for a mixed form of parliamentary and presidential systems
where the President is directly elected for a period of seven years on the basis of universal
suffrage and is very powerful with full control over the departments of defence and foreign
relations. The President can appoint the Prime Minister but the latter has to obtain a vote.

Parliamentarism is the most widely adopted system of government. There is no clear cut
separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The executive is
typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of
government in most parliamentary systems. Parliament is attempting to ensure ever-
increasing levels of accountability of the government, through an elaborate committee
system. Secret of the successful functioning of parliamentary democracy is a developed
party system. The purpose of the party in parliament is to support the government in
carrying out the party policy.

Presidential system provides for a Chief Executive who is elected for a definite term of
office. His formal powers are defined in a documentary constitution. He is assisted by a
Cabinet, an informal group without legal sanction. Its personnel are determined by the
President and exercise such powers as he chooses to vest in it.

Comparison of Parliamentary and Presidential Systems:

•The first distinction to be made is that, in parliamentary governments, the head of the
government for whom there are various different official titles such as prime minister,
premier, chancellor and his or her cabinet are dependent upon the confidence of the
legislature and can be dismissed from the office by a legislative vote of ´no confidence´ or
censure.
•In presidential forms of government, President is elected for a fixed, constitutionally
prescribed term and in normal circumstances cannot be forced to resign by the legislature.
•Prime Minister is elected by the legislature.
•President is popularly elected, either directly or via an electoral college.
Parliamentary systems have collective or collegial executives.
•Presidential systems have one person, non collegial executives.
•The prime minister’s position in the cabinet can vary from pre-eminence to virtual equality
with the other ministers, but there is always a relatively high degree of collegiality in
decision making.
•The members of presidential cabinets are mere advisers and subordinates of the president.
•In parliamentary systems, political parties enjoy strong position.
•Political parties have less of a role (no party discipline) in presidential system.

Merits and Demerits of Parliamentary System:

Parliamentary system of the government has placed more emphasis on the power of
Parliament. In most government the parliamentary system can change on the floor of the
legislature without resource to a general election. Advocates of Parliamentarism point to its
flexibility and capacity to adopt to changing circumstances as strong benefit.
Parliamentary systems are inherently less accountable than Presidential once, as
responsibility for decision is taken by the collective cabinet rather than a single figure. Some
parliamentary governments are not comprised of inclusive multi party coalition but rather
by discipline single parties. Many parliaments provide a very weak legislative check on
government because of the degree of party discipline.

Merits and Demerits of Presidential System:

In presidential government, executive stability is based on the president's fixed term of

office. Presidential system will cure the cancer of defection which ha snow become the
property of legislators. It is easier for the electorate to reward or retrospectively punish a
president (by voting him or her out of office). By winning the Presidency is a winner lake all,
zero-sum prize.
Unlike a Prime Minister, who is likely to have to form coalition, a President's party can rule
without are allies for four to six years. Losers must wait four or five years without any access
to execute power and patronage.

Which is better for Pakistan? Parliamentary System or Presidential System?

Pakistan's political system of government has witnessed a multitude of challenges, conflicts,

and criticism. ,The debate over the system of government Continues. Every strong man in
politics, including Ayub, Bhutto, Zia, Nawaz, and Musharraf had a predisposition towards the
presidential form of government. Those who fear the autocracy and dictatorial inclinations
of leaders with extraordinary powers have always opposed the idea and favoured the
Parliamentary system. Politicians who have limited political influence or are associated with
small or regional political parties like Nawabzada Nasrullah, Jatoi, Daultana, and Wali Khan,
have opposed the presidential system. The parliamentary form of government is better
attuned to smaller parties, splinter groups, or regional and ethnic parties which become
suddenly important due to a struggle between the larger parties for dominance and
formation of the government. At times, they hold the entire system hostage and wrest
undue advantages for themselves and their cronies. Wattoo's government in the Punjab is a
classic example of such political blackmail by a small party. He became chief minister with
less than 10 per cent of the seats in the Punjab Assembly, using the PPP's fears of a PML(N)
government. In all fairness, Pakistan's experience with the presidential system has not been
good as a . result, it is perceived by the people as something akin to dictatorship mostly
because it is identified with periods of martial law and military governments. Even the
constitutional period of the Presidential system, 1962-1969, is perceived as an extension of
Ayub's military rule. In any case, Ayub's Presidential Constitution was not given by a
popularly elected constituent assembly or convention and was imposed by a military
dictator against the will of the people. Furthermore, the system given under the 1962
Constitution was stained by concepts like limited electorates, guided democracy) indirect
elections to the presidency and the legislatures, and lack of participation by the people in
the system.
 Pakistan didn't learn form the multicoloured constitutional and political history. This
country belongs to the multiracial society with different ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious,
sectarian, and parochial segments of the population. The presidential system wasn't
experienced in its true form and thus, it became more prone to vanguard power, corruption,
and favouritism. The nears and dears of the president and coterie tend to enjoy the rational
authority by delegating the legitimate power of the appointed president.

This can prove disastrous for Pakistan in recent times. The political and constitutional
history of Pakistan, most nearly, urged for parliamentary system rather than presidential
one. Jinnah was strongly inclined to see Pakistan being governed under a parliamentary
democratic system. The Constituent Assembly deployed the different constituents to have
either a parliamentary or presidential form of government. This is not the true picture of
democratic presidential system which has multiple advantages.

Persecution and victimisation of political opponents is a common phenomenon in Pakistan.

In a federal presidential system, the provinces are supposed to be autonomous with their
own elected heads. The election campaign for gubernatorial office could lead to the raising
of provincial and parochial issues as opposed to national issues. Efforts should be made to
curtail the vices and excesses of the parliamentary system, such as floor crossing and
destabilisation of government by outside forces like the military and bureaucracy.