In Pakistan today, preparations to implement or otherwise impose the presidential system have reached their final stages. Most of our compatriots do not know the implications of the presidential system and how the whole nation will come under the domination of one individual. The presidential system is prone to dictatorship or abuse of office, which is very hot dangerous to the democratic process. This is a result of enormous power that is concentrated in the office of the president.
Presidentialism focuses too much on the personality of the president and his capacity, and when that individual is undermined the office is undermined and the system may even be threatened. For instance, it took a long time before the presidency in the United States recovered from the shock that gripped the office due to the Watergate Scandal, which occurred due to one moment, through the grave act of indiscretion by President Richard Nixon. The disposition of a president to be autocratic can also be attributed to the cumbersome process that is required before a sitting president can be impeached. President Obasanjo’s tenure in the office can best be described as a chronicle of alleged constitutional breaches, yet all attempts to remove him from office through impeachment failed. Organs Separation of powers can cause delays in the execution of government programmes, especially in situations where executive-legislative relations are not properly managed. In less matured democracies of the developing world, this problem is more acute when different political parties are in control of the executive and the legislature. A water-tight separation of power often inhibits the smooth running of government, especially if an attempt by one organ to moderate the activities of the other through the mechanism of checks and balances is being resisted.
The operation of the presidential system has been always criticized for being too rigid and not amenable to changing circumstances. For example in the United States during World War II all the scheduled elections under the stipulated electoral calendar were held since the system did not allow for any flexibility in form of postponement. What only ensured the stability of the system and continuity of the U.S. ‘war policy was the popularity of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was re-elected twice during World War II. However, during the same period in Britain, the tenure of the government that was held together under a war coalition structure was easily extended. Such flexibility is unknown to the presidential system in the United States or Nigerian and could not be contemplated without a prior constitutional amendment. Nigeria is presently embroiled in a debate on whether the Independent National Electoral Commission can conduct credible General Elections, in view of the time constraints imposed on it by the amended 1999 constitution and the newly enacted Electoral Law.
The parliamentary system is considered to be more cost-effective since it is from the elected members of the parliament that the Prime minister and other ministers, who constitute the nation’s cabinet, are appointed. This arrangement is economically more efficient than that of the presidential system, which requires elected members of the legislature to resign before they can be appointed as ministers. The system also puts a lot of public funds such as security votes and contingency funds, which are not subject to legislative scrutiny or public audit at the disposal of the president. This presidential spending latitude creates opportunities for lack of official discipline or even corruption of all forms. The parliamentary system where party discipline is very strong and which fuses the cabinet and the parliament into one like a Siamese twin which must swim and sink together, this is not the case in a presidential model. The fluid party under the presidential system structure may make the relationship between the executive and the legislature prone to disagreements and less easy to manage, and thus hamper the operation of the business. Although lobbying, if decently applied, has become an acceptable means by which pressure groups influence public policies; it is also open to abuse or misuse by a more than a determined chief executive who is determined to have his ways at all costs.
Despite all its shortcomings, we can say that in the strongest democracies like the United States of Nigeria, the presidential system can still work in one form or another, but in a very weak democracy like Pakistan, the presidential system will become the cause of the national catastrophe. Although Khan wants to resort to the presidential system to support his flawed rule and failed government, the result will be nothing but destruction and ruin of the system.
