Should Pakistan take "inspiration" from American style presidential system?

[Pappa Alpha]

What Pakistan needs is new provinces and powerful local bodies. That's it.

 

[Erroroverload]

I fully agree with you. The US presidential system is one of the best decentralized, federal unions on earth. It's a darn shame that thoughtout our decades old relationship with the US, we never sought their assistance in setting up and establishing this form of government in Pakistan. It will bring stability and accountability to the nation.

you are Absolutely right.
US presidential system is the best democratic system in the world, period.

 

[Deltadart]

IMO the real issue is the lack of delegation or devolution to the local level. I think the provincial system as a whole needs to go.

Replace it with 100+ districts that (1) collect the tax and (2) manage the needs of the district mostly however they want. So, let them invest in preserving a particular language, culture, etc, provided they adhere to federal mandates towards healthcare, baseline education, etc.

If some districts want to live in the 7th century, then let them be. If someone there dislikes it, they can move to another district suited to their needs and preferences. The worst districts will lose their population and die off (no tax collection). IMO 'dead' districts can help absorb and naturalize refugees without destabilization risks (@313ghazi).

The present provincial structure allows the parasitic old oligarchs, along with the industrial, and agricultural feudals to keep looting and plundering this country till perpetuity. But, no one has guts to implement these reforms, but until we do, there is no hope for Pakistan.

 

[KaiserX]

Pakistani and American system is very similar. Only difference is in America president governor of the state head of local government and senators are directly elected.
Unpopular politicians fear they would become irrelevant if head of state and governors of the provinces are directly elected isliye wo direct election k khilaf hain. New local government system of Punjab and kpk is first step towards American system. Opposition parties of sindh are also demanding direct election for Karachi mayor
And Imran Khan na senators k direct election ka 2015 main kaha tha

Pakistani parliamentary system of governance is nothing like that of America's presidential system.

In fact Bhutto copied and pasted India's constitution which itself is based off the Uks constitution but with some local modifications.

The pariamentary system we copied from the Indian's has done nothing for us in the last 60 years, except 1 govt gone after another and 2 major military coups. We have not had a single PM finish their term. And during times of parliament in pakistan economic growth/social development has been down significantly with an increased culture of corruption.

You cannot allow the current system to continue where you have 4-5 blocks of major power brokers in Pak ie COAS, PM Imran khan, ISI Chief, Opposition, Judges, Establishment elite, etc... Political decision making has been scattered among so many power brokers in a way that there can never be consensus on any subject. No ones knows whose answerable for what.

I dont even wanna get into the corrupt aspects of things with MNAS/MPAS focusing on their districts alone for development and everyone fighting for their share to the point that nothing is left for major federal projects.

Pakistan should test out a Presidential system for at least 1 decade and see the results. A strong personality or national figure such a Retired General/Major Businessman can be bought in to serve as 1st President of the Islamic Federation. Especially since we've had this parliamentary crap for the last 6 decades which has gave us nothing but death and destruction and chaos.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Grounded discourse and representation

American system is an evolving system with it's pros and cons. It cannot be copied and pasted in it's mirror image... just like the British parliamentary system in Pakistan... which still hasn't found it's feet, nor purpose.

American system has tiered representation and available at the local level, however, it is disconnected from it's constituents.
The system is based on a left and right paradigm, a very distinct and disingenuous method of looking at every human issue. It reflects mostly the nature of it's patrons.
As a corporate entity with a constitution it gives or shelters similar for other incorporated entities, thereby infringing on fundamental human rights in favor of for profit enterprise. The system ultimately draws power from the weight of wallets than individuals, whose presence or rather absence is evident in the level of their participation.

Instead Pakistan should opt for system where constituents of certain number, pedigree or disposition send their unanimous representative in every chamber.
It mandates participation to get representation!
People must understand that political parties are not representative, can never be representative. They are special interest groups formed to sway a certain decision, right, authority or development to be legislated on the backs of a certain mandate.

This recognition is important before deciding or making a truly representative system.

 

[GumNaam]

We should copy the american style of presidential democracy AND export OUR style of parliamentary democracy to america! can't wait to see pdm jalsas in texas, long marches in every state and no confidence moves every six months on capitol hill!

and while we're at it, we should also export our judicial and policing system to america. would love to see suo moto notices of beer & nachos pricings, lawyers pulling down pantaloons of judges in the federal courts, judges equating ivanka trump to their own daughter then releasing her and nypd taking bribes from drug mafia members!

 

[nang2]

Parliamentary system is simpler. Presidential system adds another layer of complexity. If you cannot handle the simpler one, forget about the more complex one.

 

[313ghazi]

One thing I'd like to see is French style elections where there are multiple rounds of voting and candidates ruled out until the final two candidates go head to head.

 

[peagle]

only successful purely parliamentary democracy is UK- let that sink in... (despite UK colonizing most of the world so many countries following parliamentary democracy)
And except for this genuine flaw of dead lock - all else is Ok

Make electoral colledge legally obligable to carry out the will of his voters- if he doesn't than his vote doesn't count and hell be replaced (after wards criminal prosecution)
Make Chief Justices term 2.5 or 5 years




@Patriot forever

"Imagine if the parliament has a majority from one party and president is from a different party > there will be complete dead lock in the government, nothing will get done."
deadlock is a genuine issue in this system though - we need a work around this

Islamist can support this too- as it is the closest to Calipha system in a democracy

I'm sorry yaar, but you are seriously mistaken. UK is not the only parliamentary system in the world, neither is it the only successful one. There are many dozens of countries with parliamentary forms of government, and many successful one, more then the Presidential forms.

Parliamentary forms of government and presidential forms come in different formats.

UK is not the only successful parliamentary form of government, there are many others, such as Canada, New Zeeland, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, the list goes on. The parliamentary form of government is far more inclusive then a presidential form of government.

But, you already have contradicted yourself by suggesting limitations, you have suggested changes, but that's the point, no system is perfect. It has to be changed and adopted to suit the needs of every country. There will always be a need to make changes over time, every constitution changes over time because the requirements of governance change. So rather then continuously demanding a new form of government every few decades, stick with the one you have, continue making small changes, when required, and it will entrench and stabilise over time.

The modern mature western democracies did not become perfect overnight, it took time, effort and adjustment, that is the most important part, not drastic change, but sticking with the same system and making small adjustments, not drastic change every time you get bored.

 

[PakLeader]

I'm sorry yaar, but you are seriously mistaken. UK is not the only parliamentary system in the world, neither is it the only successful one. There are many dozens of countries with parliamentary forms of government, and many successful one, more then the Presidential forms.

Parliamentary forms of government and presidential forms come in different formats.

UK is not the only successful parliamentary form of government, there are many others, such as Canada, New Zeeland, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, the list goes on. The parliamentary form of government is far more inclusive then a presidential form of government.

But, you already have contradicted yourself by suggesting limitations, you have suggested changes, but that's the point, no system is perfect. It has to be changed and adopted to suit the needs of every country. There will always be a need to make changes over time, every constitution changes over time because the requirements of governance change. So rather then continuously demanding a new form of government every few decades, stick with the one you have, continue making small changes, when required, and it will entrench and stabilise over time.

The modern mature western democracies did not become perfect overnight, it took time, effort and adjustment, that is the most important part, not drastic change, but sticking with the same system and making small adjustments, not drastic change every time you get bored.

Unfortunately the current Parliamentary system is beyond repair. In Pakistans case it was created by and for the corrupt. Any changes made to the system over the past several years aka 18th amendment were done to continue the hold of looters and we see the damage that has been done. Unfortunately the current system is the bread and butter of the various Mafias and political parties whose sole objective is to full their own pockets. So the idea of reforming the system to make it better over time is out of the question. It simply won't happen. The only way is to throw the 1973 constitution in the trash where it belongs and put in a real Presidential system as has been discussed by many here. We are at a point where that's the only way forward.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

I'm sorry yaar, but you are seriously mistaken. UK is not the only parliamentary system in the world, neither is it the only successful one. There are many dozens of countries with parliamentary forms of government, and many successful one, more then the Presidential forms.

Parliamentary forms of government and presidential forms come in different formats.

UK is not the only successful parliamentary form of government, there are many others, such as Canada, New Zeeland, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, the list goes on. The parliamentary form of government is far more inclusive then a presidential form of government.

But, you already have contradicted yourself by suggesting limitations, you have suggested changes, but that's the point, no system is perfect. It has to be changed and adopted to suit the needs of every country. There will always be a need to make changes over time, every constitution changes over time because the requirements of governance change. So rather then continuously demanding a new form of government every few decades, stick with the one you have, continue making small changes, when required, and it will entrench and stabilise over time.

The modern mature western democracies did not become perfect overnight, it took time, effort and adjustment, that is the most important part, not drastic change, but sticking with the same system and making small adjustments, not drastic change every time you get bored.

Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions!

While Pakistanis do understand when they participate in the electoral process that essentially they're choosing a representative but that is about it... it is this superficial understanding that this already flawed model further exasperates. But that is only one side of the coin... those who represent them are lost themselves.
These fundamentals can however be understood and people clued in... but that will not make it any better. As it stands western multiparty politics is grounded in western realities, their struggles and priorities. The ideologies fundamental to their realities social fabric, ideals, unions, industrialists, barons, aristocracy and royals. These political parties then represent their niche political ideologies set in socialist, capitalist or libertarian principles. They cannot be translated into a society where similar discourse never took place... where fundamentals and social contracts are totally different. Political parties thus revolve around cults of personality that further translates into their families.
A true and honest dialogue can never happen! It has been stifled by a fleeting and foreign ideology/politics that will never mirror grounded realities.

It will frustrate all parties in perpetuity attempting an impossible, fitting a square peg in a round hole.

 

[peagle]

Unfortunately the current Parliamentary system is beyond repair. In Pakistans case it was created by and for the corrupt. Any changes made to the system over the past several years aka 18th amendment were done to continue the hold of looters and we see the damage that has been done. Unfortunately the current system is the bread and butter of the various Mafias and political parties whose sole objective is to full their own pockets. So the idea of reforming the system to make it better over time is out of the question. It simply won't happen. The only way is to throw the 1973 constitution in the trash where it belongs and put in a real Presidential system as has been discussed by many here. We are at a point where that's the only way forward.

Rather then making empty arguments, would you care to qualify your statement.

All you have done is barge some complaints against the system that do not make sense.
Please explain, how is it broken?
Why is it beyond repair?
Why would a presidential system improve those shortcomings?

The only thing I've heard in this entire thread is personal opinions and grievances, but not one single person has created a valid argument for a presidential system, nor have they identified valid objections to the existing system
Blowing hot air is a lot more easier then attempting to provide a proper evaluation, and opening that evaluation to criticism.
If you so strongly believe in your statement, let's please open your arguments.

 

[peagle]

Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions!

While Pakistanis do understand when they participate in the electoral process that essentially they're choosing a representative but that is about it... it is this superficial understanding that this already flawed model further exasperates. But that is only one side of the coin... those who represent them are lost themselves.
These fundamentals can however be understood and people clued in... but that will not make it any better. As it stands western multiparty politics is grounded in western realities, their struggles and priorities. The ideologies fundamental to their realities social fabric, ideals, unions, industrialists, barons, aristocracy and royals. These political parties then represent their niche political ideologies set in socialist, capitalist or libertarian principles. They cannot be translated into a society where similar discourse never took place... where fundamentals and social contracts are totally different. Political parties thus revolve around cults of personality that further translates into their families.
A true and honest dialogue can never happen! It has been stifled by a fleeting and foreign ideology/politics that will never mirror grounded realities.

It will frustrate all parties in perpetuity attempting an impossible, fitting a square peg in a round hole.

I honestly did not understand your argument.
You made a statement that included a bunch of criticism going in different directions, but it had no direct relevance to the parliamentary system of governance.

What you describe is essentially part of every single form of governance, it is a reality of life, reality of governance, reality of society.
Those issues will, and do exist in one form or another in every kind of governance that has ever existed. So, how is it relevant as a criticism for the parliamentary form of governance?

Plus, you have not clearly stated which form of government you would support and why, and how it would be different from the parliamentary system.

 

[Thorough Pro]

You have no idea how dysfunctional that system is. it works, it's not broken, but it is next to impossible to get done anything if the ruling party does not have a majority in both houses

I think US style democracy is one of the best in the world from governance presepctive and for the most part is very beneficial to small states and Thier rights

American Presidential system
View attachment 810377
View attachment 810378
View attachment 810379
Phillipines and Latin America also follows this style of governance

Philippines is doing good to decent while Latin America is stagenent (I think drugs, US hegemony made it that way)

But corruption becomes a huge problem in this system

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

I honestly did not understand your argument.
You made a statement that included a bunch of criticism going in different directions, but it had no direct relevance to the parliamentary system of governance.

What you describe is essentially part of every single form of governance, it is a reality of life, reality of governance, reality of society.
Those issues will, and do exist in one form or another in every kind of governance that has ever existed. So, how is it relevant as a criticism for the parliamentary form of governance?

Plus, you have not clearly stated which form of government you would support and why, and how it would be different from the parliamentary system.

So let's take it piecemeal.
Which political ideology do the political parties subscribe to? What political and native discourse brought about that ideology? If not, then what differentiates these parties? Whose interests do they represent? What is the social contract that binds all in a common cause?
If there is a pattern and method to this madness that will then lead the discourse.