|
Discussion Discuss current affairs and issues helpful in CSS only. |
Share Thread: Facebook Twitter Google+ |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
An Ideal system of Governance in Pakistan; my view
If Pakistan wants to progress, it should redefine the process of democracy. It should have a presidential form of democracy; president being directly elected by the masses. The president choose his cabinet on the basis of competence, who must not be member of legislature, but approved by election commission. The ministers of this 'technocratic' cabinet must be backed by two policy making institutions; parliamentary committees and independent think tanks.
There must be complete separation of executive and legislative powers; which means the legislators should not be ministers, they should only be focusing on law making, in federal as well as provincial assemblies. The Civil Service must be given constitutional protection against any political interference and reprisal. There must be decentralization of power, which means the local government must be established and empowered. Basic service delivery - land revenue, policing, health - with the exception of education must be the task of local government along with provincial. I am a strong proponent of decentralization, however, I prefer education being a central subject, owing to the disastrous situation of education in Pakistan. The education ministry must be backed by provincial parliamentary committees in addition to federal parliamentary committee and independent think tanks. The education must be TOP priority of the gov't, hence must be allocated at least 20% of the budget. My premise is if Pakistan wants to get rid of all problems - deteriorating economy, fragmented society, extremism; poverty and social evils - it must provide free and quality education till Masters to all Pakistanis. This is my view on how a good system of governance can work in Pakistan. What you have to say about it, please comment. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Democracy is about representation of various segments of society and one individual can not represent a heterogeneous society like ours. Linguistic and racial chauvinism is more prominent than our love for country. Provinces chose to be the part of the federation, it was a choice. Presidential form of system is not a solution to our socio-economic-political problems rather a knotty problem itself. How President should be accountable? To whom? Whether by electables or selectables? Will immunity be provided to the President only or to all cabinet?
Presidential system is not suitable for our country. Democracy will pay but requires patience. Notwithstanding, on Education you are one hundred one percent right. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rattle For This Useful Post: | ||
Aamish Bhatti (Thursday, March 01, 2012), rose_pak (Monday, February 27, 2012) |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Dear Rattle,
thanks for your response. I do understand the heterogeneity of our country. I am not for a total presidential system. what i propose is an addition to the existing system. All legislators would be elected as per the standard procedure but would be doing only legislative work. the executive functions - ministries - would be given to technocrats, most similar to the united states in only this respect. currently our legislators are playing three broad functions - EXECUTIVE: running the ministry as a minister. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: overseeing infrastructural and developmental work in his constituency, off course apart from trying to secure more job quotas. LEGISLATION: after doing above mentioned two works, they get very minute time, and interest, to do legislation, which is their primary function. As for as accountability is concerned, I have already mentioned that the technocrat ministers would have to be cleared by the election commission as the legislators do. the only difference is they will not be elected. after being elected, the ministers would be accountable to the directly elected president and the president would be accountable to the parliament. All this would ensure separation of power - president as executive and parliament as legislature - greater accountability - independent election commission, president answerable to the parliament - and erosion of lure of power - legislature who would be directly elected would have only legislative powers and minister would have only executive powers - and due representation - legislators would be directly elected as per standard procedure. the bottom line is we need to have a system in place which ensures not only representation but also competency. the current system can have the former but can't have the latter.
__________________
Ahmad Shakeel Babar . "If you really want to achieve something the whole universe conspires for you to get your dream realized." |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1- Presidential Farm of Governance: By further explaining your view you have said.... Quote:
But this system is not workable. ...? Why. Let Suppose in Presidential Elections Imran Khan is elected as President but in parliament PPP and PML emerge as a majority parties. How these parties will let him work? Hopw will he get the budget passed? Can System function is such a situation? possibility of break down cant be ruled out. In parliamentary farm of governance the leader of house enjoys the confidence of majority which ensures smooth functioning of governance System. So this system fails at the point where President is not from majority party in the parliament. 2-Legislators not allowed to hold executive posts.... Interesting point. Legislators are answerable to public but whom the technocrats will be answerable to? They are most likely to serve as subservient of their "Boss" ,the President.How can the President be prevented to accommodate his beloved ones? Actually Ministers serves as figure heads of their respective ministries with little role in day to day affairs .The Secretary of a ministry serves as its administrative and functional head.A public representative holding ministerial post is symbol of Supremacy of People.A Minister function under party guidelines. He/She has to interact with departments across the governance apparatus. It is not matter of just technical expertise. Being a minsters have very broad dimension.A Technocrat with no political back ground will be at mercy of his boss. He/She will nothing short of a paid employee.What if dispute arise between parliament and Minster? This will instigate confrontation and lead the system towards derailment. In short the system proposed by you is likely to lead towards impasse , in case of conflict between institutions.
__________________
Hoee hay jab say mukhalif hawa zamanay key...... Humain bhee dhun see hoee hay diaa jalaanay key |
The Following User Says Thank You to Saleeqa Batool For This Useful Post: | ||
Aamish Bhatti (Thursday, March 01, 2012) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
aik lihaz se sahi bhi hai, phir army takeover ke baad puri parliament ghar nahin jaaye gee , is lihaz se legislature unlawful takeover ke raaste main aik diwar bhi ban sakta hai . But if the president is elected by masses that would create complications like clash of legislature and executive and might cause ethnic sentiment on broad political spectrum, therefore the Chief Executive and Cabinet may not be part of legislature, like present system, but Chief Executive could be elected by the legislature and then he may have the freedom to choose his cabinet .
__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Yes you rightly pointed out that the system I proposed is a bit complex but saying that it will lead to impase, i think, is a bit overstatement.
I have two basic concerns: Firstly, politicians do not have proper knowledge of working of the ministry, when they are given the task they perform poorly. the statements like "degree to degree hoti he .......", "25 bn key notes chap lo to energy crisis khatam ho jaye ga.......", "pia koi dukan naen jo do char dino maen thek ho jaye gi......." etc. apart form that, we are mulling over why ISI is not under interior ministry, why military is powerful than ministry of defence? the answer is their heads - the ministers - are not so powerful - in knowledge. As a scholar puts it "to subdue the military, you should know the job of military more than military does." So out of this reason, I proposed complete separation of powers, enunciated in the constitution as well, between executive and legislature. As I have already mentioned that each technocrat minister would be backed by think tank and parliamentary committee, it means the parliament, elected politicians, would have a say in the policy of the ministry but will not be running by themselves. Secondly, Pakistan is going through a very crucial time where it is, apart form other issues, wrangled in corruption, mismanagement, funds misuse etc. there is a basic financial rule that a cashier should not be approver, should not be purchaser, should not be auditor and should not be policy making; rather there should be one person for each. a minister who happens to be legislator as well as minister would not do any legislation which will damage his vested interests in the ministry. see how the politicians turn their coats only to get ministries. similarly, a politicians is not only a legislator but also a minister and regulator of local governance in his constituency. in such a scenario, politician does not get time to do his primary work - legislation. Lastly, USA and France are not homogeneous countries. presidential system is working there, though I am not taking a leaf from their system and what i proposed does include a large pie of power for legislators, hence a mixture of parliamentary, presidential and autocratic systems. As for as your concern about president being alienated from majority power is concerned, the president would be elected by the electorates, on the same pattern as legislators are elected. definitly, every political party would bring its candidate for presidency, hence whoever is elected as president would have backing of a major political party. now in parliamentary elections, if his party fails to secure majority, it would still have a good number of seats given the president, of the same party, has already been elected by the masses.
__________________
Ahmad Shakeel Babar . "If you really want to achieve something the whole universe conspires for you to get your dream realized." |
#7
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Ministerial Job is not something restricted to one's technical expertise. If this would have been the case, health ministry should have been headed by a doctor. Can a MBBS Doctor run effectively the Ministry as Secretary instead of a career bureaucrat?You better know the answer..... A Non Representative Technocrat will continue his job with approach of an "employee" whose main task is to keep the boss happy. Besides, the current system rewards the politicians by bestowing ministerial and other august offices upon them. This help them understand the whole state structure and this way they get ready for future more important positions.If they are denied ministerial posts ,what inducement will they have to make their way to parliament? What will be the role of political parties then?Currently Political Parties are voted to power but in case executive posts are denied to them what role of political parties will be left? And it is not that all politicians are uneducated , there are many competent individuals amongst political lot. Out of 447 members house(Both Upper and Lower) only 35 gets ministerial responsibility.From next Govt the number will be reduced further in light of 18th Amendement. I believe capable people can be found amongst the parliamentary lot who can better run the ministries. One thing more that whenever politicians unite for State Benfit, they bring good results.I would like to share the Performance of Parliamentary Commission on Judicial appointments. Independent Observers have applauded their performance so far. They have rejected Certain Recommendation of Judicial Commission(headed by CJ :From its Composition you Can Call it Body of Technocrats) on very valid grounds that were overlooked by the latter. Quote:
As for as Minsitry of Defence is concerned , Its Secretary , traditionally, is aretired army Officer of Rank of General(With few exceptions as the incumbent Secretary Defence is a DMG Officer who have been entrusted additional Charge for time bening. Former Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Salman is being tipped as New Secretary Defence) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Elected Representatives are judged -inter alia- from development work carried in their respective constituencies. Legislative Business is simplay Non-Relevant to 99.9 perecent Public(as people know little) about. Quote:
[quote]s for as your concern about president being alienated from majority power is concerned, the president would be elected by the electorates, on the same pattern as legislators are elected. definitly, every political party would bring its candidate for presidency, hence whoever is elected as president would have backing of a major political party[\quote] Electoral Dynamics in pakistan are very differnt. A Large number of candidates win polls on their personal strength.There are common exmaples where a candiate from one party win national assembally seat but other party candidate win seat from Provincial assembaly of the same area. So for voting to a legisltor personal relations will matter.But for presidential slot , it wont be the case. If President doesnt enjoy simple majority in Parliament, he or she cant function.No Budget will get passed, no legsilative wbusiness will held so there would eb hyigh chances of System Break Down That said , i stand by my words that your proposed system is impracticable in Pakistan. Though the Currunt System is not flawless but is acceptable and relatively better. The remedies to our gravenesses l;ies in strenthening of institutions.
__________________
Hoee hay jab say mukhalif hawa zamanay key...... Humain bhee dhun see hoee hay diaa jalaanay key |
The Following User Says Thank You to Saleeqa Batool For This Useful Post: | ||
mhmmdkashif (Wednesday, February 29, 2012) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability. |
The Following User Says Thank You to mhmmdkashif For This Useful Post: | ||
Aamish Bhatti (Thursday, March 01, 2012) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Chief Executive, whether Prime Minister or President, Should be chosen by the general public, instead of members of legislative assemblies. The one who gets vote of most Pakistani's should become the Chief Administrator of the State.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Very nice but this has been a very serious matter in every age yet there is no solution. Given the privilege I have following points . What You have suggested is the system functioning in United states of America. Nomination is made by the Party after that he stands as the presidential candidate after winning party elections. The President is directly elected through the electoral college, he selects his own cabinet with that he brings in 4000 thousand new executive members on board replacing the old ones. Center is entrusted with the few important powers including Defence, FR, Monetary, trade etc, and the states have their own constitutions and local government system. Congress is entrusted with legislation making, but also hold checks on President, but he has the veto power, he is supreme leader and commander of the Armed forces having the powers to declare war if he feels that US is unsafe.....can disregard all the objections of Congress. Independent judiciary is their to check all through the due process. I like the system now I compare it with the Islamic Ideal form of government. Caliph is elected by a body of members who are good practicing Muslims with all the underlying meanings and candidate must have good qualifications like the one Hazrat Umar had or Mild Umar bin Abdul Aziz, and same are the qualifications for the electors or the ones who nominate Caliph. Caliph is supreme leader with a Shura, an advisory body whose members shall have the same qualifications, Caliph is under obligation to consult the body on all matters and decision of Shura is binding. As we have seen from the actual practices of Holy prophet PBUH who consulted his companions and regarded their opinion, Caliph is the supreme commander of the Armed forces with the powers to declare war and conclude peace including all the functions and actions which he deems fit for the betterment of community and his acts are in accordance with the Divine Law which is a check on his authority. Units are autonomous with caliph nominated Governor who acts as Caliph in the province. Now Caliph can also disregard the view of shura if he is of the view that the suggestions are contrary to The law. Independent judiciary is placed with powers as we have seen Caliphs before THE Qazi. Now lets come to the Ethical ends of states: the US state stands on the social contract theory which maintains that there are certain natural or inherent rights: life, liberty property, security and protection. state is A higher form of association resulted from the contract and government are installed to pursue the ends engrained in the contract: life, liberty security. Hence state is means and so are the governments Islamic Ideology too regards state and government as means and men as the end for whom everything exists Allah mentions it in the Quran many times. But given the free will that the man has been granted with, there exists Divine law which holds checks both internally and externally. External conduct is regulated by the state in accordance with the divine law and internal by the Faith and various moral obligations attending Man,s faith. In Islamic system Laws are Divine which are eternal and unchanging and are designed accordingly that is to realize the ends both for this and life in here after. While the Social contract theory regards morality as implicit but which in practice means, it does not exist! the source of law is the Supreme body; whose members are themselves the people in unlimited democracy as existed in Athens and which was emphasized by Rousseau, or the representatives of people compose that body as exists in the US. Laws are made in the pursuance of the contract theory which maintains there are certain natural rights of men, so the law too serves as a means and if it contradicts the Natural law theory it is null and void. Now the Social contract theory is secular in nature which practically means it is concerned only with matters related to this life; here and there. So the laws can be made which can guarantee freedom in all aspects here and there, there is no limit to the freedom provided it is not against the man's natural rights and that it should be exercised with responsibility. So the freedom reaches the heights where it becomes Self contradictory, in this way the Self Evident rights or the natural rights lose their meaning thus both the state and the government starts exploiting ignoring the ethical ends because man has started demanding too much according to his free will: Un limited desires, hence violation of the contract theory, and those who form government serve their own interests and the interests of their groups, thus both the man and government forget contract. government just becomes an instrument serving the sectional interests while the state becomes a justification. hence the man go back to the State of Nature where might is right rule exists and the man had no protection but he has unlimited desires to satisfy them he can go to any lengths. To over come these conditions states were found according to the Social contract theory and government instituted. But Islamic Ideal system has the inherent checks. The system of government is designed accordingly but in practice it had been a failure with the lone exception of The Holy Prophet and Khulfa Rashdeen period. The problem therefore is of the conflict B/w Actual and the Ideal. Therefore actual must follow the Ideal so long this is not done there can be no solution. What is the best form of government, somebody asked Voltaire. He said ask the people they want democracy, ask the rich they want aristocracy only monarch want monarchy but it makes little difference to a poor man whether he is devoured by a lion or hundred rats.
__________________
Prejudice is an opinion without judgment. Voltaire my hero |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The failure of Pakistan to develop a political system, | Miss_Naqvi | Pakistan Affairs | 7 | Tuesday, October 20, 2020 07:42 PM |
Asma Jilani ---- Vs---- Govt. of the Punjab | sajidnuml | Constitutional Law | 5 | Saturday, November 11, 2017 06:00 PM |
Required VU sociology Notes by Dr. Anwar | shrd | Sociology | 6 | Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:40 AM |
History of Pak-US Relations | Shooting Star | Current Affairs | 0 | Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:50 AM |