The Lahore High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed by a citizen who was seeking directions to the cabinet division to decide an application that pursued a referendum for the presidential system in the country. According to the Court, the presidential form of government is against the basic spirit of the constitution of Pakistan that upholds the parliamentary system for the country, and therefore, the petition was declared invalid. Since the present government came into power, the voices demanding a presidential form of government have substantially raised.
The reason behind these voices is the abysmal state of governance in the country which according to certain quarters of the government is due to a weak parliamentary system. Thus, the debate has become a never-ending phenomenon. It is first important to understand the two systems in order to evaluate whether the issue of governance is linked with the system of government or not. The parliamentary form of government is the one where the President is a nominal head while the power rests in the parliament from which the prime minister and the cabinet are elected.
The prime minister is the actual head of the state and is responsible for his and the actions of his cabinet to the parliament consisting of the representatives of the people hence ensuring better accountability. The multiparty system thrives in a parliamentary system and the electoral right is freely exercised. This system prevails in Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and Canada. On the other hand, the presidential form of government is the one where the executive power is solely in the hands of the President. He exercises his powers without any interference as there is a complete separation of power among the organs of the government with certain minute checks and balances. In such a system, a two-party system works better. The decision-making is strong and resolute as it is without interference. Such a system is working in the USA, Russia, and China.
By closely analyzing the two systems it can be concluded that both have their viable and unique features. Any system if properly worked out can bring prosperity to a country. However, in the context of Pakistan, the questions lie that what real flaws are in its governing structure and whether by changing the form of government these flaws can get fixed as suggested by some. For this purpose, it is required to shed light on the issues of governance in the country. One of the biggest issues of governance in Pakistan is institutional weakness. Despite the fact, that there are many institutions for various businesses of the country but still they fail to discharge their duties in a proper manner. This is because of excessive interference, political exigencies, and lack of capacity-building. The institutions whenever try to perform their functions in an apt manner they become handicapped owing to the prior mentioned reasons. Therefore, without working on institution building the change in the system of government will be of no real use. Another factor obstructing good governance in the country is the flawed voting system.
The right to vote is the basic right of every citizen but it is often taken away based on gender, race, and caste. For example, as per a report by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in Pakistan’s 2018 general elections, the male-female gap in voter turnout stood at 9.1 percent with 11 million fewer women exercising their right to vote than men. The report highlights only one of the pressing problems lying in the voting system that directly impacts the governance in the country. As without a sound voting system hardly a truly representative government come into the corridors of power. Such government then affects the quality of governance in the state that cannot be corrected by installing a presidential system. Furthermore, governing mechanism in Pakistan is also facing challenges owing to the lack of devolution of power to local governments.
The 18th Amendment passed in 2010, provided for both decentralization and devolution of power. However, the part relating to devolution of power, directed under Article 140-A of the constitution, has not been put into operation in true spirit. Owing to the personal interests of politicians, only lukewarm steps have been taken by various governments towards local governing structures. As a result, services to the people at the grassroots level have been hindered. Such weakness of governance can by no means be resolved by transforming the parliamentary system of the country into a presidential one. In the same way, the unavailability of actual rule of law in the country has also impacted the quality of governance. The flouting of laws by the privileged with impunity creates a sense of deprivation in the have nots of the society. Moreover, the connivance of certain institutions of the government with such privileged people who disregard the laws of the country adds insult to injury for the deprived segments of the society.
These marginalized people then indulge in the vendetta against the state; further deteriorating the rule of law as can be seen from the rise of extremism and criminal activities in the country. All such circumstances directly affect the quality of governance that can hardly be improved by only changing the system of governance. In a nutshell, the issues of governance of Pakistan are myriad and they need thought-out and coordinated efforts to be dealt with. The presidential system of government will not be in any manner be fruitful for enhancing the governance in the country as experiences from the country’s history also tell.
