hello friends,

I was just wondering if Pakistan were to become a parliamentary democracy where the Prime minister as a head of the responsible cabinet wields real executive powers then why did Jinnah choose to become Governor-General and not the Prime minister??

wat say???

aap ne govt of india act 1935 parha hai??? woh parho ans mil jaye ga

yup i know it....1935 act vests all the powers, and may i add incredible powers, in the governor-general and soon after independence government of india act 1935 served as our interim constitution as amended by indian independence act 1947.
But Look, regardless of where the powers lie theoreticatically, the office of prime minister and its powers are always a matter of convention. In fact parliamentary democracy presupposes the gap between theory and practice. So, even if theoretically governor general had all the powers, Jinnah as a prime minister could have acted as a real executive of the country and would have helped establish parliamentary conventions in pakistan which would have then flourished over the course of time. Not to be.

__________________
Why not !?

contradictory question.Sometime realities are very hard to accept. so don't try to go in depth.as it may confuse you and you get a wrong answer.

__________________
Shabdon mein kya tareef karoon aap ki MUSSAA
Aap shabdon mein kahan bandh payenge.
Kabhi mere aankhon mein jhaank kar dekho,
Hazaron alfaz khud-b-khud bikhar jayenge.

Pakistan was federation since its creation and Quaid azam choosed to be the symbol of the whole Federation, representing the whole country above politics.

__________________
Life is a tale told by an idiot...

Last Governor General was Mount Batten so after creation of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam took the charge of this post till the creation of new Constitution according to the aspirations of the people. Governmental affairs were carried out through 1935 Act with some amendments on interim basis. GG had powers as President in presidential form of govt. so Quaid-i-Azam being the leader of the movement took charge of this post.

__________________
No matter how fast i run or how far i go it wont escape me, pain, misery, emptiness.

Look,

to elaborate what i mean to say,

let's take India's example.

India, like Pakistan, got independence under the same constitutional machine that is Govt. of India Act 1935 and indian independence act 1947. Yet Jawaharlal Nehru chose to become PM and not governor general and thus parliamentary conventions got the chance to strike roots and when in jan 1950 indian constitution came into force, nehru remained the PM and the governor general turned into president as the contitutional head of the state.

Perhaps I am over-simplifying the reason why parliamentary democracy failed to flourish in the early few years after the creation of Pakistan. However, it cannot be denied that ,among other things, what marred the prospects of a successful parliamentary govt. in Pakistan was the constant clash between the governor general and prime minister resulting in dismissal of nizammuddin cabinet in 1953 and eventually dissolution of first constituent assembly in 1954.

__________________
Why not !?

Lord Mount Batten remained the Governor General of India after its independence .. He also offered to be the Governor General of Pakistan at the same time .. Quaid e Azam's reply was that how can a person be the Governor General of two counties simultaneously .. ? (And that too of two rival countries) .. Refusing Mount Batten, to many critics was a wrong move .. As facts show that he helped India later on by giving them some extra land from within Pakistan, he planned the Kashmir attack .. And when one British Army General who was the head of Pakistan forces at the moment, was asked by Quaid that why he did not fight back, he replied he was bound to not to fight with his master, Lord Mount Batten, in this case .. Because although they were in different roles for two different countries, they were both subservient to the British Crown .. And by that means, he was under the command of Mount Batten ..
But the move by Quaid e Azam is justified, he intended a self-made Pakistan .. He already knew Mount Batten and his iclination towards Nehru and India .. ( NOt to forget that Mount Batten's wife was also in love with Nehru )
Quaid did not intend to remain Governor General for ever .. He just didn't get enough time to formulate the constitution and set all democratic institutions .. India and Pakistan had a huge contrast at the setting stage .. Pakistan had to start from scratch, India already had a system and resources .. So, keeping in view the emergency situation in Pakistan, Governor General was the best option .. And yes, parliamentary democracy did suffer in Pakistan right from the start .. One of the biggest reasons was the unfortunate demise of Quaid, which was too early keeping in view Pakistan's situation .. Later on there was just tug of war for power .. Between politicians them selves, politicians and bureaucrats and then the generals came ..

Disclaimer: The post above depicts the facts only .. And it not intended in any way to start a never ending discussion ..

Regards ..

__________________
You Have To Keep Breaking Your Heart Until It Opens .. !! Rumi ..

The answer to your questions lies in the circumstances in which Quaid had to work. Unlike India, most of the leaders of Pakistan were self-centered except Liaqat Ali Khan and Quaid-e-Azam. Even we had leaders who were antagonistic to the very idea of Pakistan who yielded much power and influence before and after the inception of Pakistan.Moreover, the looming Indian threat to the integrity of Pakistan could not be overruled right after the creation of Pakistan. Quaid endowed with a brilliant and unerring foresight and sagacious mind was aware of such bitter facts. Therefore, in the larger interest of the country, he took the decision of becoming Governor General of Pakistan. To sum up the above, broadly speaking the following three reasons were responsible:
1. lack of sincere leadership
2. Long list of problems that could not have been solved without vesting powers in a single sagacious person like Quaid.
3. Indian threat.