A presidential system

I have written several articles in the past in advocacy of a technocratic government based on a Presidential system of democracy. Readers have occasionally confused this with dictatorial presidencies that we have had in Pakistan in the past. Pakistan has never had a democratically elected president, which is the key feature of a presidential democracy.

The main problem in the parliamentary system in Pakistan is the rampant corruption among parliamentarians who spend many crores of rupees to get elected and later indulge in mega corruption to loot and plunder billions from the national exchequer.

So bad is the situation that when the requirement of having a graduate degree for eligibility to membership of parliament was introduced by the president, about 200 parliamentarians of the national and provincial Assemblies arranged forged degrees and were elected to their parliaments based on such fake degrees. When this was discovered by the HEC, an all-out effort was made to destroy the HEC and to hand over the higher education sector to the provincial governments. This was stopped by the intervention of the Supreme Court on a petition filed by me in 2011.

To stop corruptive practices, the role of parliament must therefore be reduced to law-making and oversight with no funding being provided to any member of parliament so that the element of corruption can be completely removed. The development funds should be passed largely to local bodies for approved schemes so that they are genuinely used for national welfare.

The government (federal and provincial ministers as well as secretaries) must comprise the top scientists and engineers in the country so that Pakistan can migrate to a strong technology-driven knowledge economy. Countries such as China have introduced capital punishment for mega corruption.

Drawing from the experiences of several countries, a technocratic presidential system offers clear advantages in terms of expertise, stability, and policy execution, especially when compared to parliamentary models. At the heart of a technocratic presidential system is the principle of expertise in leadership.

Technocrats, by definition, are individuals with specialized knowledge, often in fields such as economics, science, or engineering. They are selected for their qualifications and experience rather than their political affiliation. This leads to a governance model where decisions are informed by data, empirical evidence, and a clear understanding of complex issues.

A prime example of the success of technocracy is Singapore, where technocratic leadership, spearheaded by figures such as Lee Kuan Yew, has transformed the nation from a developing country into a global economic powerhouse. Singapore’s leaders have focused on leveraging expertise in finance, technology, and economics to achieve consistent, long-term development.

A key feature of the presidential system is the clear separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. This division allows for a more balanced system of governance, where the president can focus on executing policies while the legislature concentrates on law-making.

In the US, this separation has been instrumental in preventing any one branch from gaining disproportionate power, ensuring a system of checks and balances that promotes fair governance. In contrast, parliamentary systems can suffer from political instability, as seen in Italy, where frequent changes in government have led to policy inconsistencies and disrupted economic growth.

A technocrat-led presidential system also offers the advantage of faster decision-making. Without the need for constant parliamentary approval, presidents in this system can make swift executive decisions, which is especially critical during times of crisis. Mexico’s presidential system, for instance, has allowed its leaders to bypass legislative gridlock and implement important economic reforms in a timely manner. This agility is a stark contrast to parliamentary systems, where coalition governments often struggle to agree on policy, leading to delays and compromises that dilute the effectiveness of governance.

Technocrats, by their very nature, are driven by data and long-term strategic thinking. This contrasts sharply with the often short-term focus of politicians in parliamentary systems, who may prioritize populist measures to win votes. Although China is not a liberal democracy, the technocratic influence in governance has led to decades of sustained economic growth and infrastructure development, demonstrating the power of long-term planning.

Populism, which often dominates parliamentary politics, can lead to decisions that prioritize immediate political gains over the broader national interest. A technocratic presidential system minimizes this risk by placing decision-making power in the hands of experts who are insulated from populist pressures. Moreover, the focus on specialized governance ensures that key sectors such as the economy, technology, and infrastructure are overseen by individuals with deep expertise, resulting in more effective and efficient governance.

Technocratic systems tend to emphasize meritocracy, selecting leaders and decision-makers based on their qualifications rather than political loyalty. This stands in stark contrast to the political patronage that often influences parliamentary systems. In Germany, where technocratic governance has played a significant role in economic management, industries such as engineering and technology have thrived due to the meritocratic principles that guide leadership decisions. This focus on merit over politics ensures that the best-qualified individuals are responsible for making important policy decisions.

A technocratic president is better equipped to manage economic policy based on data-driven insights rather than political considerations. This has been particularly evident in Singapore, where the focus on sound economic management has resulted in a highly competitive economy and a stable business environment. Similarly, during times of crisis, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, countries like Taiwan – with a strong technocratic influence in governance – were able to respond effectively with science-based policies, outperforming many nations with more politically driven decision-making processes.

Countries with strong technocratic governance have shown greater international competitiveness, particularly in areas like trade and technology. Germany and Singapore are prime examples of how technocratic leadership can enhance a nation’s global standing. Technocratic systems also foster innovation, as evidenced by Japan’s focus on technological advancements.

By prioritizing long-term investments in science and technology, these countries have positioned themselves as leaders in global innovation. Drawing from the experiences of countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Germany, it is clear that a technocrat-led presidential system holds significant advantages for nations seeking to navigate the challenges of the 21st century.

However, technocracy alone is not sufficient. A competent, neutral and efficient judicial system is vitally important for the progress of a country. Pakistan must ensure that external pressures cannot manipulate judges, if it wants to develop a technology-driven knowledge economy, so vital for our future.

Our future lies in our ability to unleash the creative talents in our youth. For this, we must give the highest national priority to education, science, technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Honest, competent and visionary leadership is the urgent need of the hour.

The writer is a former federal minister, Unesco science

laureate and founding chairperson of the Higher

Education Commission (HEC). He can be reached at: ibne_sina@hotmail.com