Why Pakistan Must Switchover to Presidential Form of Government
By Karamatullah K. Ghori
Toronto, Canada
It doesn’t really matter that Imran Khan has denied, loudly and publicly, that he nurtures any ambition to transform Pakistan’s governing system to presidential. But murmurings in favour of change of format are already in the air.
For tactical reasons, Imran is right in decrying the bruhaha in the opposition camp about his alleged intent to get done with the incumbent parliamentary form of government in Pakistan and switch it, instead, to presidential.
For argument’s sake let’s concede that the opposition to him—shouting from their rooftops about any and everything that may inconvenience Imran at the very least—may be doing it as yet another dart to throw at him to just embarrass him. It’s not only the attack dogs of the opposition—be they from Nawaz League or Zardari’s PPP—who have been at this mud-slinging exercise. Hired hacks in the news media have also been waxing eloquent that Imran Khan has autocratic ambitions that can best be fulfilled by his becoming Pakistan’s all-powerful head of state free to act at will instead of being corralled—as of now—by his determined adversaries sitting on the benches of the Parliament in Islamabad.
Imran’s adversaries in parliament and critics in the media have often castigated him for entertaining dreams of glory and become Pakistan’s Erdogan. The indomitable Tayyip Erdogan rose to the helm in Turkey as its PM but has since been successful in ditching the parliamentary form of government in favour of presidential. Imran’s nemeses accuse him of mulling ways and means to emulate Erdogan.
Be that as it may, there’s compelling reasoning and logic for Pakistan to forsake the banal Westminster model of parliamentary democracy inherited from its colonial masters. The Westminster model may work like a clock work in UK but it leaves a lot to be desired in a polity as disparate as Pakistan.
The proof of pudding, they say, is in the eating. A system is as good as it works to the expectations of the people it’s supposed to serve. In Pakistan, the Westminster model hasn’t delivered to date, not because of any inherent flaws in the system but for the mere fact that it doesn’t measure up to Pakistan’s typical needs and requirements.
There’s a lesson to be learned from the success of the model in its place of birth. The parliament has been there, in UK for centuries. But in its earlier times, the parliament served and catered to the interests of the elite, the privileged feudal lords stuffing its benches. It started serving the people only after Cromwell cleared up the litter of the feudal lords from the House of Commons and consigned them to adorn the House of Lords where they are outnumbered by non-feudal appointees.
Pakistan is still a predominantly feudal society. So, the transplant of Westminster in Pakistan has served the Waderas of Sindh, the Chaudhries of Punjab, the Maliks of KPK and the Sardars of Baluchistan to their hearts’ content. The spectre of democratic abuse by the privileged class of Pakistani feudals is there for anyone to see. They are the ones whose privileges and interests are well guarded because their scions hog the federal and provincial legislatures. What little crumbs are thrown at the people—in whose name the privileged get away with all the cream of the democratic pie—are insufficient—appallingly insufficient—for their basic needs.
Defenders and apologists of the status quo, at this point, are quick to point to the success of the system in neighbouring India. However, in doing so they, for their convenience, overlook the fact that India had done away with its feudal and privileged classes in the early years of independence. So, much as it may be nearly as corrupt as Pakistan, the Indian democracy has performed much better than us thanks to the inability of the rich and privileged to call its shots.
On top of its inherent debility, the Pakistani caricature of Westminster has spawned over the decades dynasties that are corrupt and feudal to their bone marrow but shamelessly flaunt their ‘democratic’ credentials. It’s risible for the Bhuttos, or their current surrogate Zardari, to hawk their leadership as of-the-people and for-the-people.
The feudals, by nature and their DNA, are leeches thriving on the blood of the downtrodden serving them like slaves. The Westminster system is just a decoy for ruthless exploitation of the common man in the name of their government.
So, what’s the alternative for Pakistan?
Well the alternative has been around for a long time and has served the Pakistanis much better than the fools they have been made in the name of parliamentary democracy in which their representatives are supposed to be the guardians and watchdogs of their interest. Nothing could be more incompatible and antithetical than feudals being champions of the people’s rights. It’s like putting a wolf in charge of guarding a flock of sheep.
The presidential system of governance practised under Field Marshal Ayub Khan has, to date, been the most successful and efficient as far as serving the country and its people is concerned. Even the most rabid critics of the Ayub era still grudgingly concede that Pakistan forged ahead by leaps and bounds under that canny soldier. All was well and hunky-dory until Ayub, advised by that power-hungry Zulfikar Ali Bhutto—who entertained ambitions of glory from day one of becoming a minister under Ayub—took it in his head to be democratic.
It’s not only that feudals are the bane of Pakistani democracy. Cultural and linguistic disparities and angularities also stand in the way of the Westminster model delivering to the people’s expectations. Because of the feudal moorings of our social order, those governed are governed best when there’s one towering figure at the top calling the shots.
Any democratic polity first and foremost craves for political and societal cohesion, both of which are only too conspicuous by their absence under the prevailing system of governance. The unhealthy and banal ascendancy of dynastic interests—petty and self-serving as they are—have only further added to the national divide by creating power centers that work at cross-purpose to national cohesion. The linguistic strands deliberately pulled in the wrong direction—away from a unified center—have only crudely sabotaged the dream of knitting together a polity dedicated to Pakistani nationhood. That dynastic interests are ruling the roost is blatantly obvious in the so-called popular accolades accorded to corrupt robber-barons of PPP and Nawaz League.
Creating more power centers, implicit in sub-division of this or that province, is not the answer to stench the festering wounds of disunity in the nation’s ranks. As long as power remains a hostage to feudal or dynastic interests and doesn’t devolve down to the people the equation will not change, neither will the fortunes of the people take a leap forward.
The alchemy of devolution of power to the people at the grassroots can only be realised under a presidential system of government and a leader commanding national following and respect.
Since Imran has—mischievously or unwittingly often been accused of harbouring ambitions of a Tayyip Erdogan and following in the path of the Turkish leader—it’s best to cite the Turkish model as a template for Pakistan.
There were 86 provinces in Turkey, at the last count when I left there in 2000 as Pakistan’s ambassador. Right that Turkey is a much more cohesive nation, naturally, than Pakistan. But irrespective of that the wide and fairly spread devolution of power to the level of the common man adds to its national resilience and makes the job of governing it easier for a leader as dedicated as Erdogan.
That could be the case in Pakistan too under a dedicated, honest and committed leader like Imran Khan if he were to lead it as its duly-powerful president. The Turkish people had the will to be governed well and march to progress under a leader of integrity and moral gumption like Erdogan. So, they gave him the mandate to be their president and lead them to prosperity.
The people of Pakistan have not sinned to where they, too, shouldn’t have the will to be led by an honest, clean and courageous man like Imran if they see in him the potential to deliver to their expectations and turn their dreams into reality.
Remember, it was that great English thinker and poet, Alexander Pope who so very rightly said in the 19th century: ‘for forms of government let fools contest; what’s governed best is best.’
The people of Pakistan deserve the very best. That’s what their founding father, the indomitable Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, had dreamed for them. Let his vision be allowed to transform Pakistan in his image, even though 70 years too late. - K_K_ghori@hotmail.com
(The author is a former ambassador and career diplomat)
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
