Presidential vs parliamentary system

In Presidential system
Citizens  elect both executive and legislature
In Parliamentary system
Citizens  elect legislature  elect executive

Presidential or Parliamentary: A Comparison

First of all, it is important to remember that parliamentary and presidential systems are two
entirely different concepts. But when it comes to presidential form of government we find that
in the modern world, the United States is the only country that has a ‘qualified’ presidential
system in the world.
1. Nature of Government
 In presidential form, there is no concept of ‘government’ rather it is an ‘administration’
and under the influence of ‘Separation of Powers’ theory, the judiciary and the
legislature are separate institutions.

 In a parliamentary system, there is a government that consists of three institutions —

the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. There is a ‘fusion’ of power in this form,
rather than the separation of powers.
2. Political Parties
 The notions of ‘ruling party’ or ‘opposition’ solely lack in the presidential system;
instead it has a ‘majority party’ and a ‘minority party’. Moreover, in this form, there are
only two major political parties. So, the president is free from party influence in his daily
administration.

 On the contrary, there is a multi-party system in the parliamentary form and the
executive cannot be completely free of party affiliation.
3. Heads of the state and government
 In the presidential system, the president is both the head of state and the head of the
executive branch.

 In the parliamentary system, generally, two people hold these two offices.
4. Election
 In presidential form of government, the president is directly elected by the people and
he then selects his own team of federal ministers from the most competent persons in
their respective fields. He is answerable to the voters rather than the legislature.

 In a parliamentary system, people elect only their representatives to the national

parliament. These parliamentarians then elect their leader of the house who then forms
 the government. It is another striking feature of the parliamentary form that the cabinet
colleagues of the prime minister must be members of that parliament.
5. Term of Office
 In a presidential form of government, the president has a fixed tenure and elections
cannot be called unless extraordinary circumstances arise. For instance, the presidential
office becomes vacant after president’s impeachment or when he is declared unfit to
perform his duties.

 In parliamentary form, if the prime minister loses the support of majority in the
legislature, he is forced to resign through a no-confidence motion and new prime
minister is elected.
6. Source of Powers
 Constitution is considered ‘supreme’ in a presidential system and all institutions draw
their powers form it.

 The parliamentary system is based on ‘parliamentary supremacy’ and no court in the

country can challenge its authority. Parliament is the source of all powers in the
community and the regions/provinces have no reserved powers.
7. Decision-making
 The whole decision-making process in the presidential system is based on consent and
compromise. No law can be passed against the will of the president unless some
members ‘defect’ or change their loyalties. The party system is also weak and
disorganised, and party leaders are merely titular or decorative.

 In parliamentary form, parties and their leaders are very powerful. And, in case of
Pakistan, they wield so much power that if an MP does not toe the party line, he faces
the threat of being de-seated.
Presidential System
Merits

1) Stable executive: 

It establishes a stable executive which does not depend upon the fluctuating will of the
legislature. Presidential system is more stable than parliamentary as coalition governments in
latter can collapse as seen in Indian experience.

2) Better policy implementation: 

The tenure of the executive is fixed and, therefore, the policy is carried without any fear or
favour. Further, a fixed tenure of office means a greater continuity of policies and programmes
and higher standard of administration.
 3) Direct reflection of people’s choice: 

As the President is elected by the people, it is a direct choice rather than being elected by
Member of Parliaments and Legislative assembly.

4) Better administration: 

President can appoint anyone as secretaries (minister equivalent). The President has a wider
choice and he may appoint efficient people without any party affiliations.

5) Faster decisions: 

Rapid decisions can be made in presidential form of government since President is leader of his
administration and is not attached to Cabinet for decision makings. He can make rapid decisions
in the time of crisis.

6) Free from party system or spirit

Since President is free from party affiliations, the President can choose his ministers with party
advice or considerations. The President does not need to be afflicted from any party since he is
directly elected by the public.

Demerits
1) Autocratic: 
The presidential system appears to be autocratic because the President is empowered to act
more or less in his discretion. As per James Wilford Garner, an American Professor,
“Presidential form of government is autocratic, irresponsible and dangerous.”

2) Irresponsible: 
It is irresponsible because the executive is made independent of the legislature. There is no
effective means by which the responsibility for the exercise of power may be ensured.
3) Lack of co-operation: 
Another weakness of the system is its failure to ensure the co-operation between law-makers
and administrators. Frequent conflicts between the legislature and the executive may lead to
deadlocks.

4) Lack of accountability: 
There is no continuous accountability of the executive to the representatives of the people in
the legislature. The fixed term of office of the executive also curtails responsiveness to public
opinion.
5) Inelastic: 
The biggest demerit of this system is that it is inelastic structure and uncertain in fixing up the
final responsibility. It is inelastic because, once the President has been elected, the nation must
continue with him, no matter whether it likes or dislikes his policies.
6) Deadlock on important issues: 
Frequent conflicts between the legislature and the executive may lead to deadlocks.

Parliamentary system
Merits
1) Harmony  between  Legislature and Executive: 
The greatest advantage of the parliamentary system is that it ensures harmonious relationship
and cooperation between the legislative and executive organs of the government. The
executive is a part of the legislature and both are inter dependent at work. As a result, there is
less scope for disputes and conflicts between the two organs.
2) Responsible Government: 
In the parliamentary system establishes a responsible government. The ministers are
responsible to the Parliament for all their acts of omission and commission. The Parliament
exercises control over the ministers through various devices like question hour, discussions,
adjournment motion, no confidence motion, etc.
3) Prevents Despotism: 
Under this system, the executive authority is vested in a group of individuals (council of
ministers) and not in a single person. This dispersal of authority checks the dictatorial
tendencies of the executive. Moreover, the executive is responsible to the Parliament and can
be removed by a no-confidence motion.
4) Wide Representation: 
In a parliamentary system, it is possible to provide representation to all sections and regions in
the government. The prime minister while selecting his minister scan take this factor into
consideration.

5) Flexible:
There is a lot of flexibility in the Parliamentary system of government to cope with changing
situations and even emergencies. The system, being flexible, can easily adapt itself to any new
reality. One Cabinet may be replaced by a new one without much controversy to tackle any
serious situation. As Neville Chamberlain failed to lead Britain during the Second World War, he
was replaced by Winston Churchill as the Prime Minister of Britain.

6) Political indoctrination

The intimate collaboration between the cabinet and the parliament requires qualities from
their members such as leadership, power of speech, intelligence and knowledge. Constant
criticism and opposition to the ruling party requires not only discipline in party ranks but also
vigilance among them. The elections make it necessary that both the ruling and opposition
parties keep the electorate informed of their points of views. Thus, this all leads to political
indoctrination of the government, opposition and the masses.

Demerits
1) Unstable Government: 

The parliamentary system does not provide a stable government. There is no guarantee that a
government can survive its tenure. The ministers depend on the majority legislators for their
continuity and survival in office. Also, No-confidence motion or political defection or evils of
multiparty coalition can make the government unstable.

2) No Continuity of Policies: 

The parliamentary system is not conductive for the formulation and implementation of long-
term policies. This is due to the uncertainty of the tenure of the government. A change in the
ruling party is usually followed by changes in the policies of the government. 

3) Dictatorship of the Cabinet: 

When the ruling party enjoys absolute majority in the Parliament, the cabinet becomes
autocratic and exercises nearly unlimited powers.

 Harold J Laski says that “the parliamentary system gives the executive an opportunity for
tyranny.”

4) Against Separation of Powers

In the parliamentary system, the legislature and the executive are together and inseparable.
Thus it goes against the theory of separation of powers. In fact, there is a fusion of powers.
 5) Government by Amateurs
The system is not conductive to administrative efficiency as the ministers are not experts in
their fields. The PM in the selection of ministers is restricted to the members of Parliament
alone and cannot tap into external talent. Also, the ministers devote most of their time to
parliamentary work, cabinet meetings and party activities.
6) Horse trading and floor crossing
In Parliamentary system, horse trading and floor crossing can be observed which means that
members of Parliament change their parties and loyalties just to be included in the
government. Their sacrifice the public interest for their own interest which is a great demerit of
this system.
7) Criticism for sake of criticism
In Parliamentary system, just to gain government, the political parties are critical of each other
which leads to political instability.

Why Pakistan needs presidential form of government?

Weak check and balance
In parliamentary system of democracy, as in Pakistan, the prime minister is the head of the
government. The ministers are appointed only from parliament, and if there is a weak
opposition, there are few checks and balances against corruption. The heads of organisations
such as ECP, NAB, FIA, FBR, SBP, etc., are usually cronies appointed by the government in power
so that they can turn a blind eye to the massive corruption that goes on under their noses. Even
the FIA has been made helpless to catch senior government officials for cooperation.

Political monarchy
This form of government in Pakistan has benefited only a few individuals as the parties have
become mere dynasties where none is allowed to challenge party head’s supremacy or aspire
to become party supremo himself. In fact, we have a political monarchy in the name of
democracy. There are many other issues in parliamentary form in the context of Pakistan. They
include, but are not limited to, the caste system, feudalism, dynastic politics, threat of no-
confidence against the prime minister, horse trading and lesser accountability.

“The Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, though it delivers effectively in England

and is fervently admired in Pakistan, is intrinsically ill-suited to the prevailing realities of this
land, its people and their needs. Instead, it perniciously and effectively serves political mafias,
power brokers and feudal cliques — only to maintain their stranglehold on power without
interruption. By no account does the failure of parliamentary democracy justify the military’s
historical intrusions and violations, but a weak and unstable system invites all kinds of
interference and does not really enjoy the honourable sanctum that its promoters and patrons
so intuitively claim when facing critique and censure”. (Parliamentary Vs Presidential, THE
DAWN, May 13, 2019)
“The reality is that Westminsterian system of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan was
deliberately planned and designed to centralise monopolistic control through political mafias
and dynasties and does not give two hoots about the interest of the people”. (Parliamentary
Vs Presidential, THE DAWN, May 13, 2019)

Weak local governments

Moreover, in Parliamentary system, despite the devolution of powers after the 18 th
Amendment, the provinces are reluctant to deliver powers to lower level which is local
governments. Whereas in Presidential system :
“The presidential system essentially strengthens the argument for an effective form of
democracy. It takes people into consideration and delivers on good governance by having
legislators focus on governance and delivery rather than budgetary allocations and spending,
which in a presidential democracy would be delegated to the people on the ground at the
union council level for them to deliver with checks and fundamental transparency”.
(Parliamentary Vs Presidential, THE DAWN, May 13, 2019)

Dictatorship of Parliament
Moreover, in parliamentary system, the declination of morality by the MP just to be included in
government is observed. Blackmailing and other means are deployed to sabotage the system.
Similarly, opposition parties in parliament oppose every step that government tries to take
whether it is in of public interest or not. This also causes delay in the delivery of the system.
“To get rid of the manipulation and exploitation that come flying towards the executive from
various quarters and in various shapes, Pakistan must shift to a presidential form of
government. Once the executive is constitutionally independent from the legislative body, the
endless exploitation from MNAs and MPAs will cease to matter.
Also, the system would also benefit from the independent checks on both the legislature and
the executive by each other. Currently, there is no independent forum to approve or
disapprove legislation done by the parliament. The presidential system could also ensure an
elected leader is directly answerable to people who get him to the highest office. In a
parliamentary system, the executive is often at the mercy of legislators and there are plenty of
examples of prime ministers being sent packing under the guise of “in-house change”, a
number of which are based on horse-trading”. (Why Pakistan must shift to a Presidential
government, THE NATION).

Make and gain game by majority party(to make government)

Moreover, successive governments have been involved in conciliatory politics only because
they could not gain absolute majority in the parliament and have to form coalition
governments. So, the prime minister has to please his allies in the government to keep his rule
intact. This all has been to the detriment of the people of Pakistan who are ultimate losers in
this game of politics. All indices on human development put Pakistan at the lowest positions,
poverty is — as always — on the rise, unemployment is soaring, inflation is uncontrollable,
middle class which acts as a buffer zone between the rich and the poor classes has vanished,
institutional are on the verge of collapse, and people are reeling under the claws of injustice.
Amidst all this, political leaders have resorted only to making tall claims but when it comes to
fulfilling the promises, mum’s the word.
“Even though his(Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's) party had a majority in the national assembly, Bhutto
struggled to navigate around the interests of his party’s elected legislators, to fully enact the
kind of reforms he wanted to. On many occasions, he had to compromise to keep his own
MNAs and MPAs happy, let alone dealing in this context with the opposition”. (SMOKER'S
CORNER; SO YOU THINK PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM WOULD BE BETTER? By Nadeem Paracha, THE
DAWN).
“Presidential system has an elected parliament, the premier is the chief operating officer and
the president is the chief executive officer and it is to the chief executive that every institution
reports. There are ministries and committees and the system that guards this system is strong
and stable. The system works well.”
— Shaukat Aziz (Former Primer Minister of Pakistan)

Why Pakistan must stick to Parliamentary System?

Dictators favoured presidential system
All four military dictators who ruled Pakistan during various stages preferred the presidential
system. This is one reason why even the mention of this system (Presidential system) raises
many eyebrows. (THE DAWN)
Points favouring parliamentary system
Pakistan should stick to the current model of Parliamentary form of government:

 Pakistan is a diverse country and needs a diverse cabinet. The parliamentary system ensure
this.
 In Pakistan given the vast number of parties and maturing stage of democracy it is
preferable to continue with Parliamentary form due to its stability and other advantages.
 A shift will create legal issues as Parliamentary system is part of basic structure of
Constitution. Moreover, transition may not be smooth and it may create chaos in the
beginning and could prove detrimental for foreign investment.
 The lessons and experiences of past years in managing Parliamentary system will go waste
and we will have to start afresh with a new system.
 It avoids creation of deadlock and makes room for fresh elections in case Legislature and
Executive are unable to resolve their differences.

Diverse representation
“For divided societies like Pakistan, where serious challenges are posed by ethnic, linguistic,
religious, and cultural differences, the Constitution should encourage the formation of broad
coalitions that allows as many of the sub-national groups as possible to have a voice in the
political process. This is possible only in a parliamentary system where the government must
accommodate others and retain the confidence of the majority to stay in power”. (Why
Presidential, THE DAWN, Nov 27, 2019).
In a presidential system where the president is directly elected by the people, the executive
power of the state is concentrated in the office of one person. That person can, by definition,
belong to — and be representative of — just one group. The system, thus, has the potential to
aggravate the vulnerability of other groups by engendering feelings of marginalisation. No
wonder each spell of presidential rule in Pakistan has ended with a demand for greater power-
sharing, followed by an eventual shift to a parliamentary form of government. (Why
Presidential, THE DAWN, Nov 27, 2019).
Presidential systems have worked in countries that are relatively homogenous. Pakistan is not
one of them. Transplanting that system in a country like ours will weaken the federation, not
strengthen it. (Why Presidential, THE DAWN, Nov 27, 2019).
Iqbal’s views about parliamentary system
According to L.A. Shirvani’s 2005 book Writings, Speeches and Lectures of Iqbal, Iqbal believed
that a Muslim polity should elect a National Assembly made up of members who were well-
versed in both Islamic as well as modern (secular) sciences, laws and philosophies. Such an
assembly would make sure that the political and economic interests of the polity are advanced
according to the progressive spirit of its faith and a consensus (Ijma) is reached which is
representative of the electorate. Iqbal was also in favour of ijtihad (independent reasoning).
Jinnah had interpreted this as parliamentary democracy, which it was. (SMOKER'S CORNER; SO
YOU THINK PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM WOULD BE BETTER? By Nadeem Paracha, THE DAWN).
Research of Foreign people on parliamentary system
The famous Spanish sociologist Juan Jose Linz in his 2006 essay, ‘The Perils of Democracy,’ and
Harvard University’s Prof S. Mainwaring in Presidentialism, Multipartism and Democracy
write that, historically, the parliamentary system has performed better and provided more
stable democracies than presidential systems. Since the executive and the legislature are
independent from each other in the presidential system, Linz and Mainwaring find the gap
between the two as a flaw which could lead to a clash. Linz also worries that ‘the rigidity of
presidential system can create a profound suspicion of the personalisation of power.’ The
president is not accountable to the legislature as a prime minister is in a parliamentary system.