No government in Pakistan has ever been dismissed through the no-confidence motion. We have witnessed an intense debate on whether the country should revert to the presidential form of government? This issue, which must have been settled at the country’s inception, haunts us to this day. Even though Pakistan has experimented with both forms of government and the constitution provides for the federal parliamentary structure, the presidential form is contemplated with a view that it might help resolve many of the country’s woes. Pakistan became a republic after the promulgation of 1956 Constitution. During the intervening period, it enjoyed the dominion status under the British monarchy. Incidents of death of the founder of the nation, dissolution of the Constituent Assembly by then Governor-general Ghulam Muhammad, etc. delayed the constitution-making process for about nine years, thus, rendering the country rudderless. The constitution was adopted on March 23, 1956, albeit it was abrogated on October 12, 1958. For more than three decades, the country was ruled by four dictators. On the other hand, the parliamentary form of government could not complete its tenure until 2013. Tragically, no prime minister has ever completed its five-year tenure in the history of Pakistan. Against this backdrop, the debate continues for the presidential and parliamentary system. The presidential form of government is considered to be a strong political system. As the executive powers are vested with the president and he is elected by the popular votes, no one can dismiss the president before the completion of tenure. This system is successfully working in the US and is a role model for other states. Under President Erdogan, Turkey has also adopted the presidential system after the April 2017 referendum However, the president can be impeached on charges of his involvement in heinous offences or case of treason. The separation of powers, as well as checks and balances, are the bedrock of this mood of governance. The powers are divided between three branches of government. The legislature is empowered for legislation within the purview of the constitution, including the change of the constitution itself. The executive branch has to implement laws and the judiciary, in turn, has to interpret them. While the system of checks and balances maintains the harmonious relationship between the three branches, each branch keeps a check on the other two. For instance, the executive has to appoint/nominate judges and give assent to laws passed by the legislature in order to give them the effect of law. The legislature can impeach the executive and approve or overturn the prospective judges. In turn, the judiciary has to interpret laws formulated by the legislature and assented by the executive, including the powers to review and preside over the session in the case of presidential impeachment. This system is successfully working in the US and is a role model for other states. Under President Erdogan, Turkey has also adopted the presidential system after the April 2017 referendum. On the other hand, in the case of the parliamentary system, the prime minister is the head of government, and the president is the head of state with ceremonial powers. In this system, the executive and legislature are intricately linked. The prime minister and his cabinet along with advisers, with the status of ministers, are a part of the legislature. They are held accountable within the legislature in the shape of different available tools, such as questions, call attentions, zero-hours, etc. Similarly, a prime minister and his cabinet would stay in power so long as they enjoy the confidence of the parliament. In the case of the passage of no-confidence motion, the prime minister loses power and is replaced by a new prime minister. In the context of Pakistan, a debate was stirred for the presidential system. The incumbent party members vociferously support the change while ignoring many historical facts. Firstly, the parliamentary form of government is considered weak because the prime minister and his cabinet might be dismissed through the vote of no-confidence. Historically, no government in Pakistan has ever been dismissed through the no-confidence motion. Secondly, many governments in the past have been dismissed by presidents with autocratic tendencies by invoking article 58(2)(b), which was inserted in the Constitution under the eighth amendment by dictator Zia-ul-Haq in 1985. The article 58(2)(b) empowered the president to dissolve the National Assembly at “his discretion.” As a consequence, dictator Zia, for the first time, dismissed the government of Muhammad Khan Junejo on charges of poor governance in May 1988. The government of Mian Nawaz Sharif stripped the president of these powers under the 13th amendment. Ironically, the Musharraf government restored it through the 17th amendment. Fortunately, through the historic 18th Constitutional amendment, 58(2)(b) was removed, thus, stripping away president’s power to sack the National Assembly. Keeping in view the removal of 58(2)(b) from the Constitution of Pakistan and the fact that no government has ever been dismissed through the no-confidence vote, does the need arise to revert to the presidential system? The answer clearly lies in the negative. Indeed, the presidential or parliamentary systems are not responsible for the many challenges faced by Pakistan. These long-standing issues are due to poor governance and economic mismanagement among other reasons. Lastly, the parliamentary form of government is more suited to Pakistan’s federal nature. As the current prime minister belongs to Punjab, president of the state to Sindh, the speaker of National Assembly from KPK and Senate Chairman from Balochistan, it is the beauty of parliamentary system to be inclusive of all the federating units in the power structure. Instead of opting for presidential form, which seems mission impossible, because more than three dozen articles of the Constitution are to be amended in the case of changing its nature from parliamentary to the presidential form that the ruling federal government does not possess. It is high time to eliminate weaknesses, if any, from the existing parliamentary system and to focus on more urgent issues of governance and economy, which matter to the lives of the masses. The writer is a practitioner in the development sector