Mohammad Jamil
DURING the last 12 years, it has been observed in Pakistan that Provincial Govts are enjoying full autonomy and power because of 18th Amendment, whereas Federation has very little say in development of provinces. Mafias are taking undue advantage of this situation and are inclined to bankrupting Pakistan due to their machinations to detriment of people. Keeping in view the prevailing scenario, it is high time to rethink on this subject and a comprehensive agreement be made in which Federation has authority to directly monitor public service sectors so that dividends of development reach every citizen of Pakistan. It is logical as most loans taken by Federal Government are spent on development of provinces, and Federal Govt is obliged to pay back those loans. The problem is that after this Amendment, Pakistan is more like a confederation rather than federation.
Anyhow, it should be the prerogative of the Federal Government to monitor the development work being carried out in the provinces and to ensure that there is no misappropriation, embezzlement and wastage of money. However, Provincial Governments consider such practice as negation of the autonomy given to the provinces. Although, there is no harm in starting debate over presidential versus parliamentary system, but after a long and short hiatuses, it is the Geo Group that starts this debate with ill intentions. Last month, in a private TV channel talk show, the participants and anchorperson insinuated that military wished to change the present system to Presidential system. Last year in April, there was such debate and a national English daily had published views of renowned defence analysts, who believed that the presidential form of government was suitable for Pakistan, but it is almost impossible for the present set-up to change the system.
In last year’s debate started by The News International, General Amjad (Retd) was quoted having said: “Imran Khan is one of the honest politicians in the existing lot and there will be no harm if he is made president of Pakistan”. He, however, raised the question as to who would guarantee that his successor will also be honest like him. It will be too risky to assign absolute powers under the presidential form of democracy to a corrupt person, as he will have immunity under the presidential system. There were voices in the past for a presidential form of government but the proponents of parliamentary system quoted Quaid-i-Azam to prove their point that he strongly believed in federal parliamentary system. The fact of the matter is that both systems — presidential and parliamentary — are working perfectly in the US and European countries respectively.
The political leaderships of smaller provinces, however, feel that under parliamentary system there is chance for the regional parties to make it to the top slot in the province. In 1990s, Manzoor Wattoo, with only 17 members out of 240 members was elected as the Chief Minister of Punjab. But there are some demerits of parliamentary system. Perpetual political upheavals, the wheeling and dealing of elected members of Parliament for personal gain, perks and privileges of power, making majority party hostage to a minority party are to name the few. In this system, Members of the Assembly elected by the people in turn elect the Leader of the House, meaning that it is an indirect election of the Prime Minister. Even when a party gains a clear majority, the government is susceptible to splits and defections, necessitating re-alignments or re-elections. Even in the entrenched democracy, the way Margaret Thatcher was changed midway of her tenure by the Ruling Party was a case in point. It should be clear to any student of history or political science that political systems were evolved in step with changing conditions; therefore, it was crucial that its political setup was open to reform. It is an irrefutable fact that from the tribal and feudal epochs, with their own peculiar political systems of kingship, tribal Jirga and dictatorships, the world has progressed to the present democratic order based on the system of ‘one-man one-vote’. In seventeenth-century England, the trading community forged unity in its ranks to wage a struggle against the absolute powers of the king and influence of the clergy. The Westminster model of parliamentary democracy was the first of the modern systems that evolved, as the new classes associated with the market economy emerged.
This British model was at best a compromise model after seesaw battles had been fought between the ‘royalists’ of the British aristocracy and the representatives of the emerging new classes. It was a system that finally gave people the right to elect the Lower House Members and Government. It was a compromise — retaining the King as head of state, and the House of Lords as the Upper House where the country’s hereditary feudal representatives sat on the basis of their titles. Anyhow, democracy was by product of capitalism envisaged after the Industrial Revolution. There are, indeed, some merits of presidential form of government, such as the system allows the president to select his team that in his view is the best suited and most competent for the job.
Secondly, once elected by a clear majority, the legitimacy of the president both moral and constitutional is not in dispute such as in the US unless impeached. Protagonists of this system believe that it serves as a bulwark against perpetual political upheavals, allows stable functioning of government and a peaceful change of political power. In Pakistan, it is a sham democracy, as in most parties dynastic politics holds sway. Be it PPP, PML-N, JUI-F or for that matter Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party of Achakzai. Anyhow, Imran Khan has made a dent in dynastic politics so far as PPP and PML-N is concerned.
—The writer is a senior journalist based in Lahore.
