Form vs quality

Recently, there has been talk of introducing the presidential form of government in Pakistan. Let's see what that implies. First, being a democratic dispensation, the people will elect the federal and provincial governments – both the executive and the legislature. The judiciary, as in the current parliamentary form of government, will continue its independent status.

The change will be as follows: the chief executive of the country will be a president, directly elected by the electorate, instead of a prime minister who is chosen by members of parliament. The entire executive machinery – the military and civilian departments – will function under the president. (A similar arrangement will exist in the provinces with governors as chief executives).

But, most importantly, the president will have a fixed tenure of, say, four or five years and will not be removable unless impeached by parliament. The elected parliament will, similarly, have a fixed tenure and would not be subject to dissolution by the president. It will continue to legislate for the country. All ministers will be appointed by the president (and by governors in the provinces) and will not be members of the legislature. So 'technocrats' with no public following could also be running the ministries. Those who plead for this system think that because the president will have a fixed term in office, s/he will not be subject to political pressure by the politicians, ensuring a stable and efficient government and ushering prosperity for the people.

Now let us see the fallacies in the concept that the presidential form of government is more efficient and less subject to political exploitation than the parliamentary form of government.

First, Pakistan’s happy experience with a democratic presidential form of government in the 1960s was a result of how the then president Ayub Khan ruled. That 'decade of development' saw a well-functioning bureaucracy in an environment of peace and order. There were no lateral entrants; and corrupt officers and politicians were ousted and socially ostracised. But, most of all, Ayub Khan listened to the experienced people around him. Unfortunately, that golden era fell apart as Ayub Khan fell ill and was ousted. There was just one black blot – the Gandhara Motors case – which pales before the current standards.

And consider: how will a presidential system work better if the people end up electing an unworthy person – much as they have done in the past? How will a presidential system bring back law and order, and integrity and efficiency, when standards in the bureaucracy stand badly compromised, and the courts are what they have become? And the politicians will still have a role to play – from passing or not passing the budget to election and re-election of the president, to threat of his impeachment. After all, just a few more votes would be required to impeach the president than are required for toppling the prime minister; and the unscrupulous bureaucrats and politicians-cum-businessmen could continue to get together and play the system. Haven’t we seen presidential forms of government in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East? Let us not kid ourselves. The system of government is no substitute for the quality of the people who run it.

So instead of looking for new forms of government, we should be paying attention to improving the standards of governance. There are good politicians around and the bureaucracy can be revived. But that's a different story.

The writer is former executive director, World Bank.