Daily Times

Debates are an important component of democratic dispensation; however, such debates must lead to meaningful conclusions. In Pakistan, the debate over Parliamentary and Presidential form of government is as old as the country itself. Throughout the last seven decades, this debate has continued, as the country oscillated between the two systems. Changing constitutional arrangement after every decade is a futile exercise, for it does not let any system mature.

Pakistan’s first decade was a time of economic strain, political turbulence and social unrest. The constituent assembly failed to reach a consensus, and Prime Ministers were switched in rapid succession. Finally, nine years after independence, the 1956 constitution laid out framework for a unicameral parliamentary system. However, this constitution was short-lived. In 1958, General Ayub Khan took reins of the country. The new constitution, adopted in 1962, established a Presidential system with an Electoral College, which was comparable to the French constitution of the Fifth Republic, under General De Gaulle. For a decade, the Presidential system did well in Pakistan. However, the centralization of power resulted in alienation and marginalization of large segments of the population. In 1973, Pakistan oscillated back to a parliamentary democracy. This constitution, adopted under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s regime, set out to develop a federal system of government, which stood on provincial autonomy and bicameralism. For the first time, Pakistan’s constitutional arrangement saw emergence of a Senate, which gave equal representation to all provinces.

In 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq declared martial law. Under his tutelage, the 8th Amendments to the 1973 constitution allowed the President to unilaterally dissolve the National Assembly. Thus, it starkly changed the constitutional layout of Pakistan by empowering the office of the President, once again. The political turmoil and instability of the 1990s was largely due to presidential discretion provided by Article 58(2b). Between 1988 and 1996, in merely eight years, the President used his discretionary power to dissolve four governments. It is surprising that not a single government in Pakistan’s history has been dismissed due to a vote of no confidence – the conventional method of removing governments. In 1997, the 13th Amendment clipped the wings of the presidency, and reduced it to a mere figurehead. It also symbolized the shift from a semi-presidential system back to a parliamentary system. However, in 2003, the 17th Amendment once again gave wide powers to the President, while the Prime Minister was reduced to a mere figurehead. As a result, Pakistan once again oscillated towards a Presidential system. In 2010, the 18th Amendment restored parliamentary democracy and curbed the discretionary powers of the President, while devolving major powers to the provinces and abolishing the concurrent list.

Very few countries in the world have witnessed such sheer constitutional confusion over a course of only seven decades. The United States has been a Presidential system, with its peculiar separation of power and strict system of checks and balances, since 1787. The United Kingdom has been a parliamentary system, ever since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. India has followed only one system since 1947. The French Fifth Republic has remained a semi presidential system since General De Gaulle established the constitution, in 1958. On the other hand, Pakistan has frequently and constantly oscillated between Presidential and Parliamentary systems. This constant push and pull has resulted in confusion and instability. Systems deliver results when they are given time to mature. A man with feet in two boats is bound to fall. At the same time, whatever the constitutional arrangement might be, countries are bound to face challenges. The solution usually lies not in changing the system altogether, but in gradually adapting to new environments, and bringing about sustained incremental change. Just seven decades after the founding fathers drafted the American constitution, the United States was engulfed in a Civil War; however, the US did not respond by altogether changing or abrogating the constitution. Instead, Lincoln abolished slavery and secured the federation.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the trust deficit between the centre and the federating units, particularly PPP-led Sindh, has given rise, once again, to the debate over the constitutional layout of the country. Many people have actively advocated for a Presidential system. However, a Presidential system, like that of the United States, rests on strict fiscal and administrative devolution. For instance, the President does not control police force in any city; the Mayor controls it. Similarly, the power to take state level decisions rests with the Governor, not the President. The President cannot dissolve the Congress. Moreover; President requires ratification from Senate of all international treaties and appointments. Will the advocates of Presidential System allow this level of provincial autonomy, devolution, and separation of power in Pakistan? The Presidential system, just like the Parliamentary system, has its own merits and demerits. However, the question we must ask is whether we will ever give time to one system to mature or not? Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying that: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Let’s say, a government, with a 2/3rd majority, adopts a Presidential system. If that happens, will it be something new? Or will it be the continuation of the same cycle of perpetually oscillating between systems described above?

Ali Bin Rizwan holds a degree in Economics and Political Science from Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)