This refers to the article, ‘Towards technocracy’ (Sep 20), by Atta-ur-Rahman. In the article, the writer has eloquently expressed why the presidential form of government is vital in Pakistan. A legislature – as the term suggests – should have a role limited to legislation only. The executive role assigned to parliament’s elected representatives does not only create the clash of interest, but it also undermines their integrity as legislators as they will never enact a law that hinders their powers and keeps a check on their decisions and on disproportionate spending of discretionary funds. Only a legislator who doesn’t exercise executive and monitory powers can objectively see the real problems being faced by the country.
Such a legislative body can also do the work of monitoring and evaluating the system and introduce new enactments to tackle loopholes in the system. This is also a solution to end the electoral corruption and the use of ill gotten money to buy votes from the poor. When there will be no charm of power and political favour in the job of legislation, capable and patriotic people will volunteer for this job. The only difference one had with the writer was over the use of a certain term. Instead of calling it a technocracy, the writer should have used the term, a presidential system. Although the form of government he has suggested is essentially presidential, the term technocracy seems to provoke negative connotations in the minds of common citizens.
Tahir Alam Awan (Oman)
