THE subject being important, after a piece on the limits of power (March 28), I decided to further expound related concepts. A people form a government to achieve their common ideals of justice, political, social and economic, and to have peace, tranquillity and happiness. The choice of those who are entrusted with political power becomes all the more important.

Executive is that branch of government, which is vested with that power of the state that executes laws and exercises power given in the Constitution. Executive possesses police power and spending power with previous approval of parliament.

This power is vested in the executive to achieve the aforesaid ideals. It is bound to act in accordance with law and the Constitution. This is called rule of law. No person can be deprived of his live, liberty, property and reputation except in accordance with law. The journey from rule, in the name of God, by absolute monarchs with all political powers to the modern democracy, which simply means rule by consent, is an interesting story. Francis Fukuyama has very aptly narrated this long story in his book Origin of the Political Order. Earlier, in The End of History and the Last Man, he claimed that Western liberal democracy was, in fact, the pinnacle of socio-political thought.

Rules by which a government is formed by a people are put together in a formal document called the constitution. A constitution must have its genesis in the behaviour of a people, protect their values and must provide the means to meet their aspirations.

In all democratic systems, the common feature is rule by consent.

There are three modes by which the executive branch is elected. An indirect method, like the cabinet form of the government. It has its origin in England and has been adopted in most of the English-speaking world, except America and South Africa. People’s house is elected directly on the basis of universal adult franchise (one vote, one person). That house then chooses one of its members, usually the party head, as the chief executive, who is called the prime minister.

A cabinet is a combining committee — a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens the legislative branch with the executive, said Walter Bagehot. Like the British monarch, there is a president, a head of state, indirectly elected, in whose name the executive power is exercised. The prime minister appoints his cabinet/ministers, advisers etc. The business of the government is then allocated and distributed amongst various divisions of the government, which are headed by the ministers.

A minister is responsible for his business to parliament (this is called ministerial responsibility). Executive actions are amenable to judicial review. The Constitution of Pakistan follows this model (Article 90-99). Moreover, it provides federal polity where power is distributed between the federal and provincial governments.

In some other constitutions, a chief executive, named as President, is directly elected for a fixed term on the same basis of one vote, one person. The US, South Africa, Sri Lanka, France, Indonesia, Russia and some Latin American countries have adopted the presidential system. A third form of the executive is a hybrid of the earlier two systems. There is a directly elected president/chancellor or president and there is also prime minister who is indirectly elected. France, Russia, and Turkey. In all democratic systems, the common feature is rule by consent.

In Pakistan in 1973, after experiments, trials and errors, the constituent assembly decided to have a prime ministerial system. In that system the executive authority actually lay with prime minister but it is exercised in the name of an indirectly elected president.

Under Articles 48(3) of the original Constitution, the prime minister would counter-sign every order issued by the president. Unlike other constitutions, the National Assembly does not pass an appropriation act. Mere authentication from the prime minister would suffice under Article 83. Under Article 90, the federal government acts through the prime minister. Heads of the armed forces would be appointed on the advice of prime minister under Article 243.

When the Constitution was restored after nine years of dictatorial regime, which had taken over power in 1977, it was drastically amended. The president was vested with executive authority on the pattern of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Supreme Court in Mehmood Achakzai’s case approved this ‘balance’ of powers in 1997.

From 1988-2010 (excluding 11 years of another unelected regime of Gen Musharraf) this new system started a tug of war between the presidents and prime minister that was ended by the 17th Amendment and Article 58(2) (b) being repealed. By the 18th Amendment in 2010, the cabinet system was brought back.

A truly people’s representative chief executive is the ultimate democratic norm: government by consent. The ideal can be achieved by regular elections, argues the educated elite. After all, this system is successfully working in many countries of South Asia, they argue. Political parties need to be strengthened. Voting patterns based on caste, religion and regional affiliations negate free consent. A single seat based constituency distribution of seats to the National Assembly under Article 51 of the Constitution is bound to return the same people.

The most cynical view, on the other hand, is that nothing has changed from the days of Harappa/Mohenjodaro; the history of the region has remained unchanged. The Supreme Court in its several judgments has urged for electoral reforms. Fortunately, all political parties agree on reforms. Even the most conservative societies are changing. A series of reforms was introduced in the UK since early 2000.

A state needs stability that comes with a strong executive. Stability brings prosperity. Over the past several centuries, invaders from the north have left in the DNA something which keeps the people of this region in a state of uncertainty. Messages circulated on mobile phones are just one example. The Supreme Court has held in Rawalpindi Bar Association case (2015) that democracy, a parliamentary form of government and independence of judiciary are the basic feature of the Constitution, and there to stay. A short experience under the Constitution of 1962 closed the door even for debate.

The writer is the additional attorney general. The views expressed are his own.

Published in Dawn, April 17th, 2017