Story 360

Recently, some political parties set alarm bells ringing, calling for taking notice of an allegedly organized campaign on social media in support of the presidential form of government. The opposition submitted a resolution in the National Assembly, expressing the resolve to strengthen the parliamentary form of government as provided in the 1973 Constitution. Taking the floor during the NA session on Jan 22, PML-N leader Ahsan Iqbal condemned this alleged campaign while stating that “We will never allow anyone to impose any such system”. Bol News talks to four top political analysts and asks them if the presidential form of government is feasible in the country.

Dr Huma Baqai, Academic

Those who spark a debate on the presidential form of government are actually testing the waters.

I think by passing a smile instead of giving an answer to the question about the presidential system in his interactive session with people on the state television the other day, Prime Minister Imran Khan had actually taken the tacit ownership of the idea.

I think the dictatorial regimes of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Gen Ziaul Haq and Gen Pervez Musharraf could not be dubbed as the presidential form of governments.  In the presidential system prevalent in various world democracies, the president is answerable for his acts and we saw two presidents of the United States narrowly escaping ouster through impeachment.

However, given the chequered history of civil-military relations in the country, whenever someone talks about the presidential form of government, the whole matter is looked upon as some sort of conspiracy.

But the world over people view the presidential form of government as a more viable and active system of governance where the people’s problems can be addressed in a most efficient fashion. We have the examples of the United States, Turkey, France and many other countries before us where the presidential system is functioning efficiently.

Actually the issue is directly related to the 18th Constitutional Amendment due to which the very sustainability of the state is at stake and without making certain further amendments in the 18th amendment related to financial matters the things cannot settle down.

Previously, some attempts were made to bring the desired changes in the 18th Constitutional Amendment through the parliament but the same were thwarted. But for the sustainability of the state, some vital amendments have to be made either through the parliament or by introducing the presidential system.

If the parliament manages to make some changes in the 18th Constitutional Amendment with regard to financial matters and for making Gilgit-Baltistan a part of Pakistan, the issue will die down on its own.

Ehtesham Ul HAQ, Senior political analyst and TV anchor

I think the debate about a presidential form of government on social media is more a political gimmick than something serious. Actually, it all started when a TV anchor claimed that an emergency is going to be imposed in the country.

The issue of the presidential system has cropped up every now and then since 1985 when military dictator Gen Ziaul Haq concentrated powers in the office of the president through a referendum.

Later Gen Pervez Musharraf had attempted to introduce a hybrid presidential system and managed to pass the 17th constitutional amendment through from the parliament.

Right now, there is no possibility of the parliamentary system being replaced with a presidential one as to bring about such a change, a one would need two-third majority in the parliament which no party has right now. In the given situation, such a change is only possible if someone topples the government. Right now no one is taking ownership of the news about the presidential form of government on social media as neither the government nor opposition parties have taken its ownership.

The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) – an alliance of some major opposition parties – has also rejected the idea while the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawmakers have also distanced themselves from it. But academically speaking, a large number of people in the country are in support of a presidential form of government. They cite examples of France, Turkey and the United States where this system is successfully functioning.

I think that with less than 50% literacy rate in the country the presidential form of government can be a better choice as in the case of the presidential system a government can work without getting manipulated by parliamentarians. A president can serve the people in effective fashion with his team.

The proponents of the presidential form of government also believe that this system can also bring an end to parliamentarian’s exploitation at the hands of their constituents.

Orya Maqbool Jan, Senior analyst and TV anchor

Basically the parliamentary form of government is a system of exploitation and it has failed to serve the cause of people so most of the countries across the globe have discarded it. Some 97 countries got rid of this constituency-based democratic system and switched to the presidential form of government.

Constituency based political system or the parliamentary form of government was first introduced in the sub-continent in 1920 by the then British rulers and since then this constituency-centric system is prevalent in the country. Many of these constituencies are still ruled by elite families for the last 100 years and these landlords have kept the system hostage.

Interestingly, these feudal lords could not influence their British rulers but they have virtually taken hostage the system and they use their positions to exploit each and every government for their benefits.

With the passage of time, they have fortified their positions in their constituencies making it almost impossible for newcomers to win elections against them.

The parliamentary system could not be termed as a system representing the public will as in many cases a person wins a seat by just getting 12% to 15% of the total registered votes in a constituency.

I think a serious debate on the presidential form of government should be initiated; rather workshops and seminars should also be organized on the subject to discuss advantages and drawbacks of the constituency-based parliamentary form of government.

Parliamentarians raise a hue and cry whenever someone talks about replacing the parliamentary system with a presidential form because they consider it a direct attack on their constituencies and come with full might in protection of the system on which their power and influence rely. In my view the matter should be taken seriously and people of Pakistan should be engaged at all levels for this change as the parliamentary system has failed to deliver, compelling many countries to switch over to the presidential form of government.

Zahid Hussain, Senior analyst

I think it may be a wish of some people to replace the parliamentary democracy with a presidential form of government but it is next to impossible to implement it in the country in the prevailing circumstances when the political parties sitting on the treasury and opposition benches are not supportive of the idea.

The issue is not new in the country and a couple of years back, President of Pakistan Dr Arif Alvi had talked about it but after remaining in the news for some time the matter faded away.

None of the political parties in the country supported the idea and even now when the issue has once again hit the media limelight both the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) parties have rejected it.

In the given situation when no mainstream political party takes ownership of introducing structural changes in the Constitution of Pakistan, it is next to impossible to  change the system as such a change will require two-third majority in both houses of the parliament, which no political party has right now.

Former military dictator Ayub Khan had tried to introduce the presidential form of government but later he had to form the parliament as the system had failed to deliver.

Similarly, the presidential system introduced by Gen Ziaul Haq had ultimately transformed into the parliamentary system with Mohammad Khan Junejo elected as the chief executive of the country.  Gen Pervez Musharraf too had to rely on the parliament to run the governmental affairs.

So we can say that the experiment of the presidential form of government has failed in Pakistan and ultimately the parliamentary form of government and democracy is the fate and future of this country.

Some elements in the society have desired to see the presidential form of government and Prime Minister Imran Khan may also want to have absolute power in the shape of this system of governance but the ground realities do not allow for this.