Parliamentary vs Presidential

[usmanwrites]

"The major difference between these two systems is that in a Presidential system, the executive leader, the President, is directly voted upon by the people (Or via a body elected specifically for the purpose of electing the president, and no other purpose), and the executive leader of the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister, is elected from the legislative branch directly.

In the Presidential System, it is more difficult to enact legislation, especially in the event that the President has different views than the legislative body. The President only responds to the people, the legislative branch can't really do anything to threaten the President. As a result, he can make it more difficult for the legislative body to do anything.

In the Parliamentary system, if the Parliament doesn't like the Prime Minister, they can cast a vote of no confidence and replace him. This tends to make the executive leader subservient to the Parliament."

Pakistan should adapt presidential systems owing to following two major reasons:

The mindset of masses seems to favor presidential system because people vote for leader not for party.It has always Been Bhutto vs Zia, NS vs BB and now NS vs IK. This mindset is mainly because of our religious beliefs. No matter how much liberal we become we will not be able to shun our religious beliefs.

The parliamentary system has failed to deliver because Prime Minister can't take decisions independently. He can't take decisions independently because he is dependent on his party. He is dependent on his party because his party thrones him on the seat of Prime Minister.Consequently, the leader comes to alleviate the woes of masses but end up satisfying his own party and doing nothing for aggrieved and underprivileged.

[Asif3531]

I am in favor of parliamentary system ! Man, Democracy wont flourish in the presidential system.. Presidential system is all about one man show! Its against the aspiration of masses! A party consist of many leaders.. and those leaders are nominated by the party but are elected through votes! Lets not create hurdles in the way of democracy, lets work for it so that it can flourish!

[usmanwrites]

" We argue that the West is proof incarnate of the prosperity of democracy, the promised land that awaits us if only we persevere. But this is an incomplete picture of how those nations leapt so far ahead: America inherited a massive, bountiful land at a time when the indigenous population was nearly wiped out by plague and was beneficiary of the greatest mechanisation process in history.

Britain, France and Holland owe their power and influence to their times as Empires, not to democracy, and much of their current prosperity is built on the subjugation of the less fortunate in the global village. A hundred other factors, most of them geographical and entirely outside anyone’s control, conspired to make the West powerful. Democracy did not.

China, Russia, Singapore, Mexico, Cuba, Portugal, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea — all examples in the 20th century of outright or de facto dictatorships, which made a mad sprint forward in development and particularly economic indices, though often, particularly with China, at horrific human cost.

The post-war German and Japanese economic miracles, to provide a counterexample, were indeed presided over by democratic governments, but owed a great deal (particularly in West Germany) to the economic intervention of the allied powers, the forcible reduction of military spending to negligible amounts and to guided growth."

" A government for the people? The majority of elected officials, everywhere, rule for the sake of ruling, for the perks and for the power. The primary job of a politician is to get re-elected. In theory, this creates accountability, but powerful people don’t like hard work and nosy questions any more than the rest of us and so have spun an entire profession dedicated, by virtue of backdoor deals, demonstrably empty campaign promises, exclusive political machinery etc. to keeping the so-called overlords of public service, i.e., the thrice-damned public, at arm’s length.

A government of the people? According to Pildat, the average assets of an MNA amount to Rs87 million, a figure you may recognise as being roughly ‘impossible’ times more than that of the average member of ‘the people’. What connection, what representation, what empathy can be expected from men and women who have more homes than the average member of the public has meals in a day?

So, we are left then with government by the people, electoralism, that final graveyard where arguments go to die. This runs into a common problem: what the public is interested in is not necessarily in the public interest."

Originally Posted by Asif3531

I am in favor of parliamentary system ! Man, Democracy wont flourish in the presidential system

Presidential system is not dictatorial in nature. President will be directly elected by the masses.

Originally Posted by Asif3531

.Presidential system is all about one man show! Its against the aspiration of masses!

When masses will vote for the election of the president then how come this system becomes against the inspirations of the masses?

[Asif3531]

These sugar coated words won't help.. Democracy cannot survive with the presedential system in place, particularly in Pakistan. The case of GIK and Laghari are worth mentioning here .. What they did to the democracy right?

We always complain about everything, this sort of attitude must be shunned for greater good! Give NS the chance bro.. My countrymen shall support the democracy !

[usmanwrites]

Originally Posted by Asif3531

These sugar coated words won't help.. Democracy cannot survive with the presedential system in place, particularly in Pakistan. The case of GIK and Laghari are worth mentioning here .. What they did to the democracy right?

We always complain about everything, this sort of attitude must be shunned for greater good! Give NS the chance bro.. My countrymen shall support the democracy !

You are confusing presidential democracy with dictatorship.

GiK and Laghari were not elected through direct plebiscite.

These sugar coated words contain strong arguments which should be refuted with equally strong arguments if any and I don't mind if they are sugar coated as long as they are logical.

I think NS will do a better job under Presidential democratic system in contrast to current Parliamentary democracy

[mysteriousn]

I've pondering over this matter for some time; I feel either of the two systems can work provided we've men of impeccable character, vision and principles. These are the beautiful minds who develop these systems and take maximum out of it, not the forms of government that produce such envious personalities. Isn't it true?

We've examples of both, operating well in different parts of the world. For people like us neither governmental genre is perfect. We may adopt either, and, I believe, we still can do better in the prevailing governmental order. Wonders like such, however, can only be achieved when we change the mindset we choose our leaders with and with progressive and pragmatic reforms in the present political system.

[usmanwrites]

Originally Posted by mysteriousn

I've pondering over this matter for some time; I feel either of the two systems can work provided we've men of impeccable character, vision and principles.

I'm advocating presidential system because in our parliamentary system of democracy MPA and MNA's don't have "impeccable character" and individuals who possess such character can't pitch themselves in elections. However, we can find easily someone with "impeccable character" who can win majority of votes and then choose his team who carrys "impeccable character" to work for the betterment of this country. This is the major benefit of Presidential system.

Originally Posted by mysteriousn

We've examples of both, operating well in different parts of the world. For people like us neither governmental genre is perfect.

We can't compare political system of any other country with ours because their system of governance suits their history, culture and religious belifes and our must suit ours.

Originally Posted by mysteriousn

We may adopt either, and, I believe, we still can do better in the prevailing governmental order. .

No we can't adapt any. Parliamentary system does not suit ours. Leaders like ZAB, NS and BB have failed to deliver despite their good intentions because of hindrances created by parliamentary system of democracy. There are many other reasons for this failure but our political system is major contributor which operates on Caste,Creed and is hijacked by feudal lords at grass root level

[usmanwrites]

"These feudals have played a negative role in Pakistani politics since independence. During democratic rule, they formed political parties, participated in elections and became a part of the ruling classes.

Presently, feudal lords control state institutions for their own benefit as most of the leading families are members of the parliament, holding ministerial portfolios. They use this power to enhance their influence and prestige in the society. Nearly all political parties are dominated by feudal lords who are so powerful that a common person does not have the courage to contest elections against them.

In political parties as well as in the ruling circles, there is no space for ordinary people to participate or challenge them. Some feudal lords exercise even more power and control as spiritual leaders of their community. Their disciples have no alternative but to vote for them. Therefore feudalism is an impediment in the way of democratic institutions and their growth.

Moreover, contesting elections has become so expensive that common people stand no chance of participating in the electoral process. It is common knowledge that electoral candidates have to pay large amounts as ‘donation’ to the party in order to obtain a ticket. The whole process is undemocratic and against the spirit of democracy"

[kingfalcon]

Originally Posted by usmanwrites

"These feudals have played a negative role in Pakistani politics since independence. During democratic rule, they formed political parties, participated in elections and became a part of the ruling classes.

Presently, feudal lords control state institutions for their own benefit as most of the leading families are members of the parliament, holding ministerial portfolios. They use this power to enhance their influence and prestige in the society. Nearly all political parties are dominated by feudal lords who are so powerful that a common person does not have the courage to contest elections against them.

In political parties as well as in the ruling circles, there is no space for ordinary people to participate or challenge them. Some feudal lords exercise even more power and control as spiritual leaders of their community. Their disciples have no alternative but to vote for them. Therefore feudalism is an impediment in the way of democratic institutions and their growth.

Moreover, contesting elections has become so expensive that common people stand no chance of participating in the electoral process. It is common knowledge that electoral candidates have to pay large amounts as ‘donation’ to the party in order to obtain a ticket. The whole process is undemocratic and against the spirit of democracy"

Bhai Sb at least give the credits for this.

I agree with you regarding presidential system. Pakistan and her people are not yet mature enough or educated enough to the point that they practice a British style democracy. Historically presidential systems have helped the country (apart from the misfortune of having a bad president/dictator at times).

There needs to be good checks and balances to get the right person elected as president and then he/she may work in the interest of the masses.

[usmanwrites]

Originally Posted by kingfalcon

There needs to be good checks and balances to get the right person elected as president and then he/she may work in the interest of the masses.

Upper and lower house are there for checks and balances. Presidential system does not eliminate lower house and Senate in their entirety