Our democracy is based on the British model, namely parliamentary system of the Westminster type. General elections are held; the leader the party that secures a majority of seats in National assembly is named
leader of the House and Prime Minster, He appoints other ministers. If no
party secures an absolute majority, then a group of parties combine to
form a majority and they set up a coalition government. In the provinces,
the leader of the majority party becomes Chief Minister and he appoints
other ministers. The ministry holds office so long as it commands a
majority in the house. It may be defeated in a vote of no-confidence and
then it must quit.
This system works best in England, where there are only two
parties–the ruling party and the opposition–and defections are unknown,
In Pakistan, in any fluid situation, defection becomes the rule and
M.N.A.’s and M.P.A.’s cross the floor and change over to the new party
which promises them ministership or other gain. Once an M.P.A. changed
sides many times in a fortnight. A majority party can become a minority
over-night by the exodus of some members. There is no stability, no long-
term planning for the good of the country; only short-termmanoeuvring to
keep one’s chair, while all the time the opposition is trying to dislodge the
ministry by winning dissidents and then to take its place. In this musical
chair race of politics, all the time, attention and energy of the leaders are
spent on ministry-making and ministry-breaking, while public good takes a
back seat. These daily desertions and defections of people’s elected
representatives have made our democracy the despair of the people and a
laughing stock of the world. So it is often suggested that we should go in
for the presidential form of government as in the U.S.A. There the
President is a constitution-made dictator for 4 years; he has complete
security of tenure. In every leap year, presidential election must be held,
war or peace. He has vast powers to rule and advance the country. He
selects his ministers not only out of elected members but from outside.
Some of our political leaders have advocated the presidential system
for the following reasons.
(1) The President can choose his cabinet of best talents. He need not
restrict his choice to M.N.A.’s only. (In the provinces, an elected
Governor could do the same).VOD
At present, every M.N.A. and M.P.A. dreams of becoming a
minister and so spend lakhs of rupees on his election in the hope of
making many more lakhs as a minister. If this lure of ministership is gone, many would spend such huge sums and thus political corruption will
Also at a present, vote-catchers are appointed ministers, though they
e illiterate in the subject of their portfolio. An irrigation and power
minister may be very ignorant of engineering complexities. It is said that
participate in the rough and tumble of elections, the dust and noise of
y democracy needs an aristocracy of talent. Outstanding specialists do
party politics. The presidential form can utilities the services of its best
brains for solving the country’s problems.
(2) The cabinet ministers, not being elected, do not have to play to
the gallery to get the votes of the ignorant masses, by appeal to caste, sub-
caste, community; Jats versus non-Jats, Mohajir versus non-Mohajir and
other false slogans. They need not strike populist postures to please their
constituencies, such as raising such slogans as socialism, nationalisation,
secularism, authoritarianism and so forth. They are not prohibited from
doing the right thing for the country, for fear of losing public favour or
Josing votes at the next election.
(3) Ministers do the work of governance and administration, instead
of wasting all their time in politicking to win friends and influence people,
to keep their flock intact and to lure to their sides disgruntled members of
other parties.
(4) It puts an end to defections and desertions, the chief malady of
our democratic working. There is no inducement to turn coat. After all, it
is the spate of defections that has induced our people to look for other
ways of running our democratic system.
(5) Also the President, being sure of job security for his full
term, need not woo the changing favours of the M.N.A.’s nor give them
undeserved posts, positions or other benefits, much to the detriment of the
nation and at great expense to exchequer.
This could put a brake on the politics of money, of buying M.N.A’s
(price may be as high as Rs. one to two crores) to create a majority and
other serious evils. The leader of opposition said that in general elections,
the ruling party has spent Rs. 60 crores on them. This was all black
money that came from big business houses. They in turn made a profit of
Rs. 200 crores by governmental favours, evidently all at the expense of the poor masses. The politicians gained, the businessmen gained but the
people lost and suffered grievously.
Under that system, there will be no party whip, no order to the
party men to support the minister, even when their conscience says he is
in the wrong.
In the sixties, France’s fourth republic was in a bad way, because of
constant changes and shufflings of ministries of multi-party coalitions. The
average life of a government was 3 months. De Gaulle brought a stability
by switching over to presidency.
But presidential democracy is not an unmixed blessing; nothing in
world is. We have four crore voters. A country-wide election of the
President, combined with the election of Governors of all the four
provinces would cost hundreds of crores of rupees. Only a very rich party-
may be backed by foreign money–could file a candidate for Presidentship.
In America, voters elect an electoral college of 154 members and since
their party labels are in public knowledge, the election of the President by
this electoral college is a mere formality and a foregone conclusion. In
Pakistan, there would be a race of money to buy some of these members.
So here the election of President will have to be direct. And what if a
clever politician by strength of his or her money power and slogan-raising
is elected President? Such a President could oppress the people and feather
his own nest for a full term, without any let or hindrance.
One political leader said, “It is not the Constitution which has failed
the people, but it is our chosen representatives who have failed the
Constitution.”
Any system, presidential or parliamentary, can work successfully if
people working it are noble, honest and public-spirited. Again any system,
presidential or parliamentary, will fail miserably, if people working it are
unprincipled, opportunist and interested in only gain for themselves and
their families.
