Pakistan's current parliamentary system is in practice since the 1973. Similarly, after becoming the Republic in 1956, Pakistan adopted parliamentary form of government. On the contrary, the county was under the presidential system after the enactment of 1962 Constitution. Under the presidential system, Pakistan suffered catastrophic loss to its democracy and territorial integrity: through rigged elections, Fatima Jinnah was defeated, and debacle of East Pakistan. However, parliamentary system's beauty lies in its diversity. For instance, President of Pakistan Dr. Arif Alvi belongs to Sindh, Prime Minister Imran Khan belongs to Punjab, Speaker of the National Assembly Asad Qaisar is from KPK, while chairman Senate Sadiq Sanjrani hails from Balochistan. Despite all its weakenesses and temporary setbacks, democracy and parliamentary system is more suited to Pakistan as it is accommodative and its beauty lies in diversity.

Yes! Parliamentary system in Pakistan exhibits diversity, but one cannot blame past presidential system for disintegration of East Pakistan. because, first, the system back then was not truly a Presidential system in spirit and practice as well. It was basically characterized by Martial law at work. Second, political party winning in West Pakistan had shown reluctance to form govt controlled by the east. Plus other factors... (you know rest)

Coming back to systems, Presidential one also possesses beauty in its formation. But, til now, present Parliamentary system has given rise to more issues and problems than benefits. In certain countries, Presidential system has been working well and in some Parliamentary has been. We need to have constructive debate over what system address geopolitical realities of the country and what changes that specific system requires to suit our circumstances whether Parliamentary/Presidential one.

1. I do agree that presidential system was not responsible for debacle of East Pakistan. It entails other issues. However, it was during that system that it occured (keeping aside democracy & dictatorship debate).



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.

"However, it was during that system that it occured (keeping aside democracy & dictatorship debate)."

You are self-contradicting your agreement (agreeing and again projecting it system driven phenomenon).
But, one cannot blame the system for it. It was politics and other factors that drove such disintegration.

@The dream of rain

1. Partially agreed with regard to the centre-province issues, etc. However, it is equally important to accommodate people from different federating units in the top-decision making positions such as current dispensation (President from Sindh, PM from punjab, etc.). That diversity is symbol of strength and gives sense of ownership to the federating units. In my view, it does not engender polarisation, disagreements, etc.

2. Party politics is the beauty of democracy whether it is presidential or parliamentary system.

3. Let us assume in parliamentary system party politics takes precedence over the public interests. On the contrary, personality takes precedence in presidential system.


4. Yes it was contradictory statement (earlier highlighted debacle of east Pakistan and engineered defeat of Fatima Jinnah, proverbial death of democracy in Pakistan, with the presidential system and subsequently said "However, it was during that system that it occurred"). Here, purpose was to discuss which form of government is best possible option for very nature of our country.


Above all, it was a good debate. Appreciable.






P.S. I have also written in this regard at detail. Sharing link:
https://dailytimes.com.pk/439243/pre...entary-system/