W R IT T E N BY M U H A M M A D H A M Z A TA N V I R • J U N E 1 9 , 2 0 2 1 • 12:02 PM • A RT I C L E S ,

C U R R E N T A F FA I R S , PA K I S T A N , P U B L I S H E D C O N T E N T

Parliamentary System vs Presidential

System: What’s Better for Pakistan?
The failure of the parliamentary system in the country has raised concerns
regarding its effectiveness. The populace is divided between the pros and cons of
transitioning to a presidential form of governance yet again after the pathetic
display of the politicians in the Parliament over the budget proposals. The
overarching concern, in either case, is for the delivery of democracy and good
governance to the grassroots level.
About the Author(s)

 

Muhammad Hamza Tanvir

+ posts

Mr Muhammad Hamza Tanvir graduated from COMSATS University. He has a keen interest in
international relations and regional politics.

Introduction
There have been many administrative reforms in Pakistan throughout its history – and the
country has even experimented with a parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential
system. In recent times, the debate between Pakistan’s parliamentary system vs a
possible presidential system has reignited in the public’s consciousness. The country,
throughout history, has experienced different kinds of governments; from democracy to
military dictatorship, to civilian martial law by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

Pakistan inherited its current government system, the parliamentary form of government,
from its former colonial rulers, the British. Ironically, while the parliamentary system has
been successful for governance in the latter, the case for Pakistan is on the contrary.
 Written Packet
Revision

Practice using curated written

packets

Revise Radiology

The failure of the parliamentary system in the country has raised many reservations. Does
a single solution of a parliamentary form of government resolve all problems? Considering
the varying demography, culture, and history of both countries, how can one size be fit for
all? Recently, a debate on transitioning to the presidential system has surfaced on social
media. The population is divided between the pros and cons of each form of the governing
system.

However, in either case, the overarching concern is for the delivery of democracy and good
governance to the grass-root level. Both schools of thought are, hence, unanimous
regarding their concern for a strong government. The question, however, remains as to
which of the governing systems can deliver upon these values effectively.  

Pakistan has experienced both forms of governments, yet a large number of the
population is unaware of the merits and demerits of either; an essential understanding is
lacking about the deep-seated problems vested within the governmental structure of
Pakistan. One of the major reasons for this downfall is the perennial tug of war for power.

Understanding the Presidential and Parliamentary

Systems

Many in the country believe that the presidential system is synonymous with dictatorship
as it is a ‘one-man’ rule. The main cause behind this perception is that some leading
analysts and media persons continue to protect the parliamentary system that has
bogged the nation down. To clear such fallacies, one must understand the true meanings
and merits of the presidential system.

It is erroneous to tantamount the presidential system with dictatorship as those are two
different notions. Moreover, the presidential system is a form of the democratic system;
many countries which are perceived as the torchbearers of democracy are under this form
of governance. The champions of democracy must realize that the presidential system
fuels the argument for effective democracy and is not undemocratic.
In the presidential system, the president is elected by the people directly which makes the
power concentrated in his office. This makes the perception of a one-man rule somehow
true yet it also leads to a strong government. It preserves the head of the government
from the fear of being ousted by the opposition which leads to a focus on public
development and service delivery.

This lack of fear also entails the depoliticization of administration; talented and skilled
manpower is sought to ensure efficient service delivery as the president must maintain
his/her popularity with the masses. Moreover, the coercion for compromises inflicted by
opposition parties is not there. It provides irrevocable fixed terms to legislators and
executives.

Also Read:  The Social Exclusion of Transgenders in Pakistan

As far as the question of one-man rule is concerned, the president can be impeached by
the approval of both houses; the process of impeachment is quite intricate as compared
to the parliamentary system. This provides the government with enough strength to deliver
favorable services to the common citizens of the nation.

The presidential system engages talented people and paves the way for good governance
by limiting the legislature to focus on governance and delivery. In the presidential system,
unlike the parliamentary system, the budgetary allocations and spending are delegated to
the people at the grass-root level in union councils with checks and rudimentary
transparency. The presidential system ensures the separation of power between the
legislative and executive branches.

It is relevant to mention here that the presidential system ensues the peril of becoming a
dictatorship in some cases if the president starts to victimize its political rivals; it
becomes complicated to halt his/her activities through impeachment due to the
complexity of the system. It can further augment the notion of being discriminating
amongst minorities or those factions which are not averse to the president on an ethnic or
lingual basis.

On the other hand, the parliamentary system is much weaker in terms of strength as
compared to the presidential system. Impeaching a prime minister is easier in the
parliamentary system than doing so in the presidential system. The government thus
remains perplexed about its stability as there is no irrevocable fixed term of the executive
and legislatures in the parliamentary system.

This forces the governments to make inevitable compromises and compensations to the
opposition parties to keep the government intact. These compromises result in a friendly
opposition and can hamper a check on the government because the former often seems
eager to jump on the bandwagon of the latter to protect its vested interest – which is not
about the public service delivery in most cases.

The advocates of the parliamentary system posit that it provides equal representation and
voice to all the people of the state without discrimination. A major demerit of the
parliamentary system is that it does not separate the power between the executive and
legislative branches of the government which leads to the politicization of the
administration of the country. This politicization then stimulates the culture of patronage,
corruption, and a decline in reliance upon professionalism.
Successful Presidential Systems in the World

The United States is exemplary for a successful presidential system. In the US, the
presidential system has been deployed since the inception of the country. The United
States is a cauldron of different cultures making it a heterogeneous society. The success
of the presidential system in the US is no secret; it was its governmental structure that
made it a superpower in the world despite being a former colony of Britain which is a
parliamentary democracy.

One of the salient features of the United States’ governmental structure is its system of
checks and balances of the legislature, judiciary, and executive which ensures the
functioning of the three branches constitutionally and in favor of the public interest.

The country has made unprecedented progress in history due to its strong government
which may not be the case in the parliamentary system. The system hampers the
president to victimize his political rivals thus negating the notion that it can lead to
dictatorship. Furthermore, the powers concentrated in the office of the president enable
him/her to make crucial decisions that are in favor of the country without compromising
with the opposition to secure his/her term.

Also Read:  Pakistan's Energy Crisis and Its Solution

The presidential form of democracy and its performance in the country amply denote that
this form of government can produce exemplary impact, particularly in cases where the
parliamentary system has failed – Turkey is one such example.

One cannot disagree with the sharp rise in the soft power among the Muslim countries
and progress of Turkey in the recent past which was not possible erstwhile. For this
purpose,   Turkey revoked its parliamentary system and adopted the presidential system.
Incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – the former prime minister of the country –
has changed the system of the government in the country to ensure strong governance,
allowing him to take prompt decisions for the good of the country.

The powers are now separate in the country. Legislative powers are vested in the Grand
National Assembly while executive powers are exercised by the Council of Ministers which
is directly appointed and headed by the president. The rationale behind the change in the
structure of government in Turkey was to have a strong government that could make bold
and efficient decisions without facing hindrances from the opposition.

The example of China and Russia would be pertinent to cite here as the governmental
structure in both these countries concentrates powers in the office of the president. Some
might oppose these examples as they are not democratic countries, however, these
countries comprise strong and stable federal governments which along with many other
factors have contributed to the rise of both these nations in the 21st century.

Parliamentary System vs Presidential System in Pakistan

Good governance has been the core issue of the country. Pakistan has experienced both
forms of government in history: the presidential form under the military rules and also
during the civilian martial law of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and the parliamentary system during
the democratic regimes. If we look at the facts and figures of the progress and prosperity
of the country, it is easily understandable that the country was doing well in terms of
improving living standards, education, health, and development during the three military
regimes when the presidential system was in effect.

Pakistan comprises of heterogeneous society and all the segments of the society must
get equal representation in the government which is only possible in the parliamentary
system. This argument is used by the advocates of the parliamentary system in the
country but the question is has this equal representation resolved the issues of the people
that are being represented? The answer is a big no.

The local body system was also endorsed in its true spirit as stated by Ishrat Hussain,
Advisor for Institutional Reforms and Austerity of Pakistan, in his book Governing the
Ungovernable: Institutional Reforms for Democratic Governance in Pakistan. Although the
presidential form of the government was experienced under the non-democratic military
rule yet the progress made during the military rule by no means justifies the intervention of
non-democratic forces in the democratic process.

The plight of the people of Baluchistan, Sindh, and FATA is an utter substantiation of the
bad performance of the parliamentary system. Most of the politicians in the country are
averse to the debate on the change in the governmental structure arguing that the
presidential system is dictatorial. In reality, the presidential system is not undemocratic
instead it is one of the forms of the democratic systems imposed in many countries of the
world.

Also Read:  Myanmar's Shadow Government: In the Name of Democracy

The presidential system is not perilous for the democracy but, in reality, it is a threat to the
vested interest of the corrupt political elite of the country. Many argue that the
parliamentary system is working well in Britain, Canada, and many other countries but the
reality is that the literacy level in these countries is much higher than that of Pakistan.
Most of the politicians in the latter country are feudal lords who lack the essential
knowledge regarding the functioning of the democracy and parliamentary system, and
also the competence to rule the country effectively. It is a common perception in the
country that most politicians are corrupt and they participate in politics to serve their
interests.

Pakistan inherited the parliamentary system from its former colonial ruler. The structure
bequeathed by the British to the subcontinent was deliberately designed to centralize the
monopolistic control through political mafias as the former were least concerned about
their colonial subjects.

The populace of Pakistan needs service delivery at the grassroots level. For this purpose,
a country needs strong, well-structured, and agile local governments which are fully
accountable to the people and can also eliminate the notion that resources are not
allocated equally in every region which is possible in the presidential system as has been
experienced in previous such governments in the country.

‫خدا کون ہے؟‬

‫ہمارے لئے خدا کے‬
‫پیغام کو سمجھیں‬

The agile local governments can also be used to curb the sentiment of being dealt with
unfairly by the central government. If the parliamentary system was able to do so then the
plight of Baluchistan would have been different which delineates the failure of the
parliamentary system in Pakistan.

The wealthy elite, through the parliamentary system, succeed to reach the apex ministries
in Pakistan based on its influence while being incompetent. The history of the country is
replete with such instances. Unfortunately, the country’s politicians who are seen to be the
torchbearers of the democracy manifest such undemocratic attitudes.

One such example is the statement of the Minister of Railway after the recent accident
when he refused to resign from his office. If a similar incident would have happened in
Britain or any other parliamentary country, the situation would have been otherwise.
Hence, keeping the undemocratic attitude of the people and politicians of the country in
mind, it is unjust to compare the country with Western countries where the parliamentary
system is performing best.

In Pakistan, a fresh debate on the parliamentary system vs the presidential system must
be launched by the political scientists and leading think tanks to assess which form of
government is most effective for the country’s performance. Pakistan severely needs
strong governance and political stability in light of its declining condition under the
parliamentary system.

This failure, by no means, advocates the military’s intervention in the country.

Nevertheless, the political elite must become actualized of their corruption and
incompetency which paves the way for non-democratic forces to intervene.

A change of system or at the very minimum, a healthy and lucrative debate on this subject
is crucially needed for the continuity of democracy in the country, and further to remove
the resentments of the minority factions and the destitute of the country. The essential
concern must remain the amelioration of the plight of the people and not merely an
adherence to a specific governance form.