APROPOS the editorial ‘Debate on presidential system’ (April 18). The editorial puts its weight behind the present system but without raison d’etre or highlighting the pros and cons of each to enable readers to make a judgment.

The observation: “The alternative is a referendum on the issue, on which the constitution is vague if not silent.” The constitution is not the word of God or sacrosanct that it cannot be changed. Even the original 1973 Constitution has undergone many changes carried out by successive civilian governments. Therefore there is nothing sacrosanct in amending its provisions.

A popular referendum is a device which allows voters to approve or repeal an act of the legislature. A referendum has more legitimacy as it flows from the grassroot level with each citizen exercising his right on the particular issue.

The United Kingdom’s crucial decision of opting out of the European Union (Brexit) was not routed through parliament but decided through a referendum owing to its far-reaching implications. For that matter, the British constitution is also silent on referendum (Britain does not have a written constitution).

Had the 18th amendment been a wonderful thing, the largest democracy on earth, India, would have adopted it in letter and spirit. In my opinion the 18th Amendment needs to be revisited, if not altogether scrapped. It has given rise to polarisation and divisiveness while making the federation bankrupt.

The need of the hour is the creation of more provinces and strengthening of the local bodies’ set-up. If these suggestions are incorporated in the 18 Amendment, it can become an agent of change.

Huma Arif

Karachi

Published in Dawn, April 22nd, 2019