Since the carving out of the British India by over seven decades, Pakistan has experienced with abundant different constitutional forms, from parliamentary democracy to Presidential form of government, to outright military regimes. Since the inception of Pakistan to the recent times, Pakistan’s political system of government has witnessed a multitude of challenges, confliction, and criticism. Unfortunately, Pakistan didn’t learn form the multicolored constitutional and political history and thus, pushed the country deeper and deeper into the morass of uncertainty and insecurity. This country belongs to the multiracial society with different ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious, sectarian, and parochial segments of the population living and interacting with each other. Any governmental or political system, either presidential or parliamentary, must correspond with their aspiration and demands with clarity, sincerity, and transparency and thus, the selection of an appropriate and the most suitable political system of governance for Pakistan is a broad, complex, and a challenging question. The constitutional and political history of Pakistan provides the clear crystal indication that every parliamentary form of government, in which the winner don’t take the control of all governance, is succeeded by martial laws. These all martial laws authorize the legitimate power to president, had a minute respect for parliamentary democracy and witnessed in the right of presidential form of government which was the most linked to their own aspirations and character. It is clearly evident by Ayub Regime (1958-1969), during which, he instilled the Martial law and hold the office as President by abrogating the Constitution of Pakistan 1962. To implement the presidential system, Ayub allocated a committee of his own ministers (headed by Manzoor Qadir with Muhammad Shoaib and Bhutoo as its members), which made entire recommendations by considering Ayub’s all liking and desires. The studious and diligent efforts of Ayub bore fruits, which result into the presidential constitution 1962, but this system wasn’t interpreted in its original context. For example, despite of giving the rational authority by using the presidential system, the president and the members of national and provincial assemblies were elected indirectly by the electorate college consisting of basic Democrats. Ultimately, all political parties demanded the nullification of this presidential system and stood out for the restoration of parliamentary system in the agitation against Ayub in 1968-69. The presidential system wasn’t experienced in its true form and thus, it became more prone to vanguard power, corruption, and favoritism. Additionally, the nears and dears of the president and coterie tend to enjoy the rational authority by delegating the legitimate power of the appointed president which can prove disastrous for Pakistan in recent times. Above all, in Pakistan there is no more check and balance, over the three main pillars of the state, to make accountable and the answerable president, and it enforced the political organizations to promulgate the parliamentary Constitution of 1973, so to have the rational authority in different hands. Again after the parliamentary system, General Zia and Musharraf imposed Martial law and blamed that political crisis was laid squarely on the parliamentary system and a weak presidency. To again have a accolated power in one political actor, Zia and Musharraf strove hard to make amendments in the constitution. Zia called for Revival of the Constitution of 1973 Order (RCO) followed by the Eighth Amendment, for example, while Musharraf made unilateral amendments in the constitution through his Legal Framework Order (LFO) which became the culminating points of their campaigns. These Amendments further strengthened the position of the president by conferring overwhelming wide powers on the President, and thus, rendering the office of the Chief Executive weak and vulnerable. This increase of power for president makes him more prone to corruption, favoritism and largely misuse of it. For example, in the span of eight years ( 1988-1966), the President dissolved the National Assembly four times in exercise of this discretionary power. For the first time , on 29 May 1988, Zia dissolved the National Assembly and dismissed Junejo’s government. The second occasion was 6 August 1990, when Ishaq dissolved the National Assembly and dismissed the Benazir Government. While the third occasion was 1996 when Leghari dismissed second Benazir government. As a result of the frequent exercise of this power, the National Assembly elected in 1985 for a period of five years didn’t last for more than three years and two months, while the national assembly elected in 1988, 1990, and 1993 was dissolved after twenty, twenty-nine, and thirty-six months respectively. These all indicate that, while in Pakistan, presidential system can no longer be suitable and therefore, the Eighteenth Amendment to the constitution restored the parliamentary system of Pakistan. The political and constitutional history of Pakistan, most nearly, urged for parliamentary system rather than presidential one. The creator of Pakistan, Jinnah was strongly inclined to see Pakistan being governed under a parliamentary democratic system. For example, Jinnah worked, as first Governor General, under the parliamentary system of Liaquat Ali Khan. But, unfortunately, after his death situations became serious for Pakistan particularly in the terms of constitution making. The Constituent Assembly deployed the different constituents to have either a parliamentary or presidential form of government. In the entire constitutional and political history of Pakistan, presidential system was not experienced in its true form but it was more prone to vague and misuse of power. For example, even the constitutional period of the presidential system, 1962-69, is perceived as an extension of Ayub’s military rule. In any case, Ayub’s presidential Constitutional was not given by a popularly elected constituent assembly or convention and was imposed by a military dictator against the will of the people. Furthermore, the presidential system, under 1962 constitution, was perceived as single individuality power, improper use of power, indirect elections to the presidency and the legislatures, and the lack of popular participation in the system. This, of course, is not the true picture of democratic presidential system which has multiple advantages. Keeping in view Pakistan’s Constitutional and Political experience and the heterogeneity of the population and its division into linguistic, parochial and ethnic groups, the presidential system may not be appropriate for Pakistan and the reasons for it can be listed as follows:Firstly, in Pakistan, it’s the matter of several decades that different provinces don’t enjoy the equal life chances. Deploying of presidential system, in which president serves as head of state and government, can further accelerate this endemic which can create the discrimination amongst the pluralistic society sections. Punjab, for example, may be perceived as having an advantage over all other provinces altogether. There should be continuous bickering and confrontation between Punjab on the one hand, and the smaller provinces, on the other. Secondly, in case the Governors are appointed by the President as executive heads of the provinces, the Constitution would cease to be a federal one. It would virtual mean denial of the will of the people in the provinces and they would be denied the rights to elect their own provincial administrations. The provincial administration would he perceived to be imposed by the center, as was the case during Ayub’s rule. This situation would be completely opposed to the concept of provincial autonomy and the federal system. Thirdly, Persecution and victimization of political opponents, a common phenomenon in Pakistan’s politics, are likely to increase in presidential system. In parliamentary system, the opposition can protest in the Parliament which the prime minister and ministers have to listen to. In presidential system, there would be no such opportunity. Lastly, more provincial autonomy is likely to be demanded. In a federal presidential system, the provinces are supposed to be autonomous with their own elected heads. In case the constitution allows elected governors for the provinces, it may lead to serious friction or maybe even confrontation between the federation and a province if the president and governor of that province belong to different political parties. The election campaign for gubernatorial office could lead to the raising of provincial and parochial issues as opposed to national issues. This issue can exist anywhere in a presidential system but in Pakistan, where the provinces have their own separate linguistic and ethnic identities and groups, the situation would become serious and might run contrary to the interests of national interests and solidarity. For these reasons, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the parliamentary system, with all its drawbacks and disadvantages, may still be more suitable to Pakistan’s condition and climate. Efforts should, therefore, be made to curtail the vices and excesses of the parliamentary system, such as floor crossing, and destabilization of government by outside forces like the military and bureaucracy.