REGARDLESS of the immediate political turmoil the country is in, there has been a heated debate about the form of government that potentially has the best chance of taking us out of the morass we are in. It seems the system of ‘controlled democracy’ is not going to work anymore, no matter which political party happens to be in power. The people have lost trust in politicians, and all government institutions seem dysfunctional.

Also, in all probability, the role of, or should I say intervention, by the establishment in Pakistan’s political scene will continue due to the weakness of the political system made worse by the constant changes in the Constitution under the pretext of ‘saving the country’ from time to time.

The establishment’s role in the future cannot be completely ruled out as the country does need them when the political system fails or falters. Therefore, it is imperative to have a system which is acceptable to everyone; the people, the political parties and the establishment.

The most suitable could be the French presidential system, which has all the ingredients of what we require. This is so because France also went through political turmoil before the system was introduced by Charles de Gaulle.

Under the French constitution, the president is elected for a five-year term; there is no term limit. The president names the prime minister, presides over the government (cabinet of ministers), commands the armed forces, and signs treaties. The president may submit questions for national referendums and can dissolve the National Assembly.

All his powers are subject to countersigning by the prime minister, except in a few cases, such as the dissolution of the National Assembly.

In certain emergencies, the president may assume special, comprehensive powers. However, in normal times, the president may pass neither legislation nor regulations, though, of course, if parliament is from his political side, he may strongly suggest the adoption of certain legislation, or request his prime minister to take such or such regulation.

The president is directly elected by the citizens. This means that the presidential candidate is required to obtain a nationwide majority of non-blank votes in either the first or the second round of balloting, which presumably implies that the president is somewhat supported by at least half of the voting population. This gives the office public legitimacy. Despite his somewhat restricted powers, the president thus enjoys considerable aura and effective power.

The president may not dismiss the prime minister, but when two offices are held by members of the same political party, he can, in practice, have him resign on demand, and it is known that prime ministers are asked to sign undated resignation letters before getting nominated. He appoints the ministers, ministers-delegate and secretaries.

When the president’s political opponents control parliament, his dominance can be severely limited, as he must choose a prime minister and cabinet reflecting the majority in parliament.

When parties from opposite ends of the political spectrum control parliament and the presidency, the power-sharing arrangement is known as cohabitation which sometimes used to be the case till 2002, because the mandate of the president and National Assembly was seven years. Now, that the mandate of the president has been shortened to five years, and that the elections are separated by only a few months, this is less likely to happen.

Considering our political scenario, only the system outlined above may keep everyone happy since the current situation is suggestive of a huge turmoil and anarchy.

Zafar Aslam
Karachi

Published in Dawn, March 12th, 2022