Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeAdventure
1. I do agree that presidential system was not responsible for debacle of East Pakistan. It entails other issues.
2. Parliamentary is suited to the countries which are socially diverse such as Pakistan. For instance president from one province, while prime minister form other, etc. Moreover, close cooperation between legislature and executive also gives a sense of ownership to the legislators. Last but not least, presidential system is development countries may adopt the characteristics of virtual dictatorship.
|
Diversity and close cooperation do not resolve issues caused by the parliamentary system. Often, there arises Center-province quarrels, policy implementation issues, legislative disagreements because it (parliamentary system) prioritizes party politics rather than public grievances. Secondly, as said by you, PM being other President from other province etc (diversification) has engendered disagreements, polarization, and personality driven politics and many other issues (i'm being concise).
Agreed, presidential system can adopt dictatorship but changing the system to suit our geopolitical realities will curb such spirit.
I repeat again (as did above) need of constructive debate is necessary to consider which system addresses our issues and call for changes in the adopted system.
P.S. We need to be unbiased in such debates, it will allow us to equally weigh merits and demerits. Plus, what we have been implementing doesn't mean we can't change it.