A case for a presidential system

To put it simply: change the system of government, if you want to change the fortunes of the country. “Why has Pakistan not realized its potential?” asked Lee Kwan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore, after I had presented proposals for Singapore and Pakistan pooling their strengths to seize opportunities in Central Asian markets.

Before I could reply, he proceeded in his usual style, to answer his own question. “In Pakistan” he continued “people play politics 365 days of the year. Those who form the government, are always looking over their shoulders to see who might be trying to stab them in the back. And those in the opposition are always intriguing to overthrow the government. How can any government work for national development when its very survival is always threatened?”

The principal cause of the continuing under-development of Pakistan, according to Lee Kwan Yew, was a system of government, where those elected ‘to govern’ are only interested in ‘playing politics’. Since the door to destabilize and overthrow any government at any time is kept open, it has encouraged power-brokers to round up – on any pretext – a handful of members by temptations, horse-trading, blackmailing etc to threaten any government with a vote of no-confidence.

These tactics have been repeated several times to a perfect art of destabilizing any government. This has distorted our parliamentary system and made it hostage to the interests of a few power brokers who could subvert the will of the people, if their interests are not promoted.

Most governments have purchased their survival and continuity by loosening the strings of the public purse and not asking too many questions about their use. This has given a bad name to Pakistan in the international community as a country which has so little to show for so much money spent in the name of development.

Repeated over time, these tactics have converted the ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ into the ‘government of the few, by the few, for the few’. Hence, persistent poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and unemployment have become the fate of the masses while the gap between the asset profiles of the rulers and the ruled has been widening, and nations that were behind Pakistan have been overtaking it during the years.

This is not to say that there is ipso facto something wrong with the parliamentary system of government. It has been working well in several European countries and Japan for long without the fault lines which we have created in our own system of government. Sadly, no serious efforts have been made over the years to eradicate these fault lines. Even the two military rules played politics and used the fault lines of the parliamentary system to their own advantage and created their own band of patriots to rule the country.

Five ( 5) such serious fault lines have had corrosive effects. First, in the absence of irrevocable, fixed terms for legislature and executive, there is a constant threat of destabilization by a handful of power brokers, given that we are not people known for exercising self-restraint in many matters. This is a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every parliamentary government in Pakistan which was referred to by Lee Kwan Yew.

Second, because of their own problems, the opposition often seems eager to jump on the bandwagon of the government to protect and promote their own interests. This desire to be on the same page with the government compromises the monitoring role of the opposition in the assemblies and many a time, the proceedings of assemblies give an impression that there is no one in the house to seriously address the problems of the people.

Third, in line with the centuries-old tradition of the Subcontinent, where there was no separate legislature in the government of any king, raja or maharaja, there is no interest in legislative work as empty halls of assemblies often bear witness. As everybody seems interested in exercising executive function, several policies and programmes are running through executive orders of the government and not under acts of legislature.

Fourth, the absence of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, has been the principal cause of the politicization of the administration, decline in professionalism and rise in cronyism and corruption. This has given rise to a culture of patronage/ sifarish for postings, transfers, promotions and decline in reliance upon professional excellence for upward mobility.

And, lastly, the lack of competence has been seriously hampering the quality of governance – especially in developing countries like Pakistan, where the pool of quality human resources is already limited. As the selection of cabinet members to lead the government in a parliamentary system is confined to members of the assembly, the problem of competence becomes extremely acute and affects the quality of governance.

Many of these fault lines are removed in a presidential system since it provides for: irrevocable fixed terms for executive and legislature, separation of powers between executive and legislative branches, depoliticizing of administration and making the talent pool of the whole nation, including of members of assemblies, available for improving the quality of governance.

It is relevant to mention here that during the preparations for the 1973 constitution, a number of draft proposals were presented for consideration. Records show that a proposal for a presidential form of government for Pakistan was also under serious consideration and allegedly Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was also in favour of it. It was only for the sake of seeking unanimous approval of the constitution, that the opposition’s preference for a parliamentary system of government was agreed to.

It is safe to say that the history of our country would have been different if a democratic, federal, presidential system of government, protecting fundamental rights and provincial autonomy, had been working over these years.

The barrier has been the preference by some people for centuries-old culture in the Subcontinent, where we have had good or bad kings, rajas, maharajas but never any law-maker simply because the king was the law-maker and there was no separate legislature or law-making body outside the person of the king.

Some of us want to continue to live in the past. This has given new lease of life to the medieval culture of fiefdoms and mediocrity which was easily overwhelmed by a small band of competent and organized professionals in the past, when the chips were down.

The sooner we change it, the better for people of Pakistan.

The writer designed the Board of Investment and the First Women’s Bank.

Email: smshah@alum.mit.edu