The debate on whether the parliamentary or presidential system is best for the country is back in the news. It rears its head whenever the leadership and financial problems facing the country seem insoluble as they do now. We know that a deep ill-will for parliamentary democracy exists in certain influential quarters. And the failure of the presidential system hasn’t deterred its proponents from peddling its virtues. We can’t quibble with the idea that fine-tuning a governance model for the general good is necessary. But a change seems counterproductive when its impact is questionable. As an example, since the 1960s, the US, China, and India have enjoyed success without tinkering with their governance models. It also helped that these countries had sound leadership to guide them on the right course. Among others, Reagan and Clinton, Deng and Xi, Nehru and Manmohan arguably qualify as transformational leaders who made a difference. In contrast, in the same period, an unbroken chain of ineffective presidential and ‘elected’ governments led Pakistan. Military despots Ayub, Yahya, Zia, and Musharraf enjoyed unbridled power. Supported by a coterie of elite bureaucrats, they imposed centralised rule and derailed democracy in a search for legitimacy. Among the civilians, Z.A. Bhutto, who could have made a difference by strengthening parliamentary democracy, decided instead to accumulate power. The other civilian rulers, governing under the guidance of unelected institutionswere ineffectual, unable to make the hard decisions to effect change. The big test for Pakistan is to address the huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots. To help in achieving this aim, democratic institutions that can meet people’s expectations and ease discord have the best chance of success. Citizens must continue to exercise their power through the ballot box The lesson here is that enforcing political stability and effective governance won’t work. It requires time and patience. In a nutshell, parliamentary democracy didn’t have a chance to succeed. And the leadership poorly served the country. As a result, today, PM Khan must dwell on the merits of the Iranian, Turkish, Chinese and Malaysian models. Pakistan, aside from Khan’s imaginary Riyasat-i-Madina, doesn’t have a successful model to offer! The supporters of a presidential system stress it provides strong leadership and governance. But Pakistan has paid a high price for the top-down model. It has contributed to national disasters such as the secession of East Pakistan, religious extremism and extra-constitutional actions. The discontentment and dysfunction in Pakistan point to weak governance, corruption, poverty, illiteracy, and injustice. But these issues have persisted irrespective of the presidential or parliamentary system. They have more to do with underlying structural problems. An authoritarian state, extractive economic system, and powerful interests groups are the main stumbling blocks to change. Most governments would struggle under these trying conditions. As disillusionment with Khan and his government grows, we hear that a presidential system could work wonders. It would make the complex governance and economic problems disappear. But there is no evidence, that if Khan was President, he could magically make Pakistan a better country. Bypassing parliamentary gridlock and the shenanigans of elected politicians isn’t enough. A team of technocrats or elected ministers by themselves, without the right leadership, can’t deliver positive results. It’s a given that the forces inimical to parliamentary democracy won’t let up. But the favoured top down presidential model will fail once again as the concentration of power isn’t the answer to the myriad of problems. If we accept the chaos, uncertainty, and turbulence, democracy can provide long-term stability in a diverse country. It gives the masses the best hope of socio-economic advancement, accountability and the rule of law. That said, the frustration of large segments of voters is a sure sign that a government isn’t performing. This creates fertile ground for anti-democracy elements to exploit through authoritarian solutions. Parliamentary democracies must maintain their legitimacy by protecting the most vulnerable in society from economic shocks. Khan’s government faces this test. The strict conditions of the upcoming IMF stabilisation programme will raise the cost of living, making life even more miserable for the poor and disadvantaged. Citizens must resist attempts to weaken democracy. Rolling back gains in provincial autonomy and repealing the 18th Amendment is part of this plan. Parliamentary democracy is the best bet to protect the interests of the most vulnerable in society. Giving more power to institutions that already have it in abundance under a presidential system can only dilute democracy. The way forward is empowering local bodies, a transparent electoral process, and more political participation. Loosening the hold of the small establishment elite over the levers of power can lead to a participatory and pluralistic order. Staying the course with parliamentary democracy is the only way to challenge the power of those unelected power centres that defend the status quo. The big test for Pakistan is to address the huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots. To help in achieving this aim, democratic institutions that can meet people’s expectations and ease discord have the best chance of success. Citizens must continue to exercise their power through the ballot box. They have to challenge their chosen leaders and parties to deliver on their electoral promises. A viable democratic system requires nothing less. The writer is a freelance contributor