Daily Times

The ultimate objective of any democracy is for people to elect rulers of their choice, which is what Pakistanis believe they are doing when they cast their vote every election. Yet the vast majority of the voters have never directly voted for a prime minister or even a chief minister. They have only voted for their local MNAs and MPAs. In the pure sense of the word, Pakistan is not really a democracy; it is more of a coalition of little democratic constituencies.

The three most senior political positions are President, Prime Minister and Chief Minister. The current Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi received 134,000 votes as MNA and rules over a nation of approximately 200 million people. Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif received 60,000 votes as MPA and rules over a province of 110 million citizens. President Mamnoon Hussain was not even on a ballot.

Is this a democracy?

The short answer is yes, but we can do better. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the number one democracy in the world is, in fact, a monarchy ¬ The Kingdom of Norway. Pakistan comes in at 111 out of 161 countries ranked, which means a thriving democracy is not merely about an election, however free and fair, but rather about creating a democratic system that works. Honestly, our British designed system of ‘parliamentary democracy’ does not. According to the EIU, we are not even a democracy but a “hybrid regime,” a polite way of saying democratic on the outside but not so much on the inside.

Pakistan needs a presidential system. Since the candidates in a presidential system contest a national election instead of a local one, their vision and promises will be inclusive of all the provinces, not just a particular area — which has been the case under the parliamentary system

Our current political system has significant flaws, the primary being that the majority of power lies with people that are not elected by the masses. The prime minister is elected by the parliament and just as easily toppled, which is why no Pakistani prime minister has ever completed a full five-year term, causing various degrees of instability. Once elected, the PM usually shows his gratitude by swelling his cabinet full of loyal but unqualified MNA’s. The current federal cabinet has 50 members. The United States has 30, while France has 18.

To change this, Pakistan needs to directly elect an administration full of experts rather than have a government imposed on it. This can happen if we adopt a presidential system like the US, Iran, France or Turkey. In such a system, the executive power will lie with the president who will be voted in directly by the people of the country. The parliament will instead be responsible for legislative matters. The president will select a qualified cabinet from a pool of professionals, not restricted to just parliamentarians. He or She will have a five-year term secured by the people rather than the fragile assurances of the parliament.

Since the presidential candidates will be contesting a national election instead of a local one, they will run a much more comprehensive campaign. Their vision and promises will be inclusive of all provinces, not just a partial area. As a result, the citizens will be better represented and feel more included.

The process of a national election will further act as a filter, inviting more inspiring, dynamic, and insightful contenders. It will give an open platform to a multitude of candidates, especially professionals from cities or those that don’t hail from any large ‘Bradari’ or tribe, a luxury currently restricted to only a handful of party chiefs. This will give us the change we so desperately seek.

Switching to such a system is far from impossible. Pakistani government’s eternal role-model Turkey has set a perfect precedent. They also had an appointed president but decided to change it. In 2007, Turkey held a successful referendum towards that end. Consequently, the constitution was amended and now the Turkish president is no longer appointed, but elected.

A common concern for such a system is election rigging. Logically speaking, a presidential election would be more difficult to rig since all the attention would be focused on that one contest. It would be comparably easier to get away with manipulating polls of multiple contests such as Pakistan’s general elections, where thousands of people are running for essentially equal positions.

A second major concern is about presidents turning into dictators like Pervez Musharraf or Ziaul Haq. It should be remembered that they were dictators to begin with and being appointed as president was the only loophole. In fact, by finishing the option of appointing a president, a nation is much less likely to have military dictators. How well do you think Musharraf or Zia would have fared if they had to contest the old fashioned way?

If one needs further convincing, they need not look far. Just compare our current president to elected ones like the magnanimous Jose Mujica of Uruguay, the uplifting Barack Obama, the bold Mohammad Ahmadinejad or the commanding Recep Tayyip Erdogan. One is a product of a system that essentially gifts the presidency, while others were forged from a fire in a system that makes one earn it.

The writer is an agriculturist with degrees in Economics and Mass Communication. He can be reached at Skhanzada@ymail.com

Published in Daily Times, February 2^nd 2018.