Quaid-e-Azam suggested presidential system for Pakistan

Quaid-e-Azam suggested a presidential system for Pakistan

When we talk about parliamentary and presidential systems, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) are the most influential. Both the UK and the US are democratic countries where people choose their governments. Both of these forms of democracy allow people to vote for their leaders. This makes them superior to other forms of government that do not allow their people to enjoy popular sovereignty. The UK adopts a parliamentary system. The British Crown is the head of state The role of the crown is the symbolic representative of the continuity of the British state act as a purely ceremonial figure act only at the Behest of the cabinet. The Prime Minister is the head of government. The role of the prime minister is to maintain the support of their members of parliament appear in the legislature weekly for a televised question period direct the activity of the cabinet guide political party to victory elections hold together a fractious coalition provide national leadership.

In terms of the government system, the US adopts the presidential system. The current US president is Mr. Joe Robinette Biden Jr. He is the head of state and head of government. He has a lead role in US foreign policy. The other roles of the US president are acting as commander-in-chief of the military, responding to managing the day-to-day affairs of the government, making senior appointments to the executive and judicial branches, starting proposals for legislative action, and vetoing legislative bills and the last role is to manage an enormous bureaucracy.

The UK does not have a single document called the constitution, but it scattered its constitutional provisions over various Acts of Parliament. A simple majority in the legislature can change the British Constitution - various acts of Parliament. For instance, the current Coalition Government introduced fixed terms for the House for Commons by passing the legislation. The UK does not have a constitution it is rare for British politicians to argue that the actions or proposals of their opponents are illegal or ultra vires In the UK, every Government Minister must be a member of one of the two Houses of Parliament and, if he or she is not already in the Parliament, then he or she is made a peer (that is, a member of the House of Lords). In the UK, the political party leaders in the lower chamber of the legislature (the House of Commons effectively chosen almost all members of the upper chamber of the legislature ().

 

While the US constitution, in America it has a written constitution as does most nation-states. The American constitution is hard to change. For instance, the equal rights amendment, which sought to provide equal rights for women failed and there has been no successful amendment of the US Constitution except for one technical measure since 1971. In the United States, political discourse frequently refers to the constitution, typically Republicans arguing that Democratic initiatives are unconstitutional. Also, because of the strict separation of the powers meaning that nobody can be a member of more than one of the three arms of government, no Cabinet member may be a member of the Congress.

 Although the American political system has a strict separation of powers, members of the Supreme Court which is the judiciary are nominated by one of the other arms of government, the President, and approved by one part of another arm of government which is the Senate that is part of the legislature. The United Kingdom is a monarchy with the head of state being a hereditary member of the royal family (although he or she has no real power but only a ceremonial role) The UK is a parliamentary system, with the Prime Minister holding office and power so long as he or she commands a majority of votes in the House of Commons. A British Prime Minister usually heads a government with a majority of seats in the House of Commons and the ability to pass almost any legislation that he or she wishes.

The UK, the changeover of Prime Ministers is virtually immediate - within hours of the election result, one person leaves 10 Downing Street and within the following hour the successor enters it. There is no limit to the time that a British Prime Minister can serve in the office. In the UK, the government is normally equally partisan with all Ministers coming from the governing party but, in 2010, exceptionally the Conservatives were required to go into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and grant them 17 ministerial positions.

 

The British Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister who normally attends and chairs every meeting. The size of the British Cabinet varies: it is whatever size the Prime Minister wants it to be, which is normally around 18, sometimes with a small number of additional Ministers who are not actual members but who are invited to attend on a regular basis. The British Cabinet meets once a week and formally takes decisions, usually by consensus under the guidance of the Prime Minister. Since there is no separation of the powers in the UK system, the Prime Minister is a member of one of the Houses of Parliament - these days, invariably the House of Commons and regularly addresses the Commons, most notably once a week for Prime Minister's Question Time (PMQ). Effectively a British Prime Minister can be removed by a majority in the House of Commons supporting a vote of no confidence.

American President has much more power than the British Prime Minister as known he is the commander-in-chief and has the power to issue executive orders which have the full force of law. However, the constitutional system of checks and balances seriously circumscribes the power of the US President who often finds it really difficult to push legislation through Congress. The transition period between the election of a new president and that person's inauguration is two and half months. A US President is limited by the constitution to two four-year terms in office. In the US, the government is highly partisan with the President appointing executive colleagues who are almost exclusively from within his own party. In the US there is a Cabinet that is appointed by the President but he does not chair it or even attend it. The size of the American Cabinet is fixed: it is the Vice-President plus all the heads of the executive departments making a total of 16. They meet at irregular intervals and acts as advisers to the President. As a result of the separation of the powers, the US President does not attend or address Congress except for the annual State of the Union Address.

The removal of a US President requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives to approve articles of impeachment and then a two-thirds vote in the Senate to find the President guilty of such charges. The UK legislature is the parliament that comprises the House of Commons (lower house) and the House of Lords (upper house). The House of Commons comprises 650 members representing individual districts in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Directly elected by parliament Members are elected for a maximum term of 5 years Power & Responsibilities: actively debate issues, take part in a legislative committee, vote on legislation proposed by the government, have the power to remove the prime minister through a vote of no confidence and represent their constituents The House of Lords.

 

The members of the House of Lords have life peers (about 650) who are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, Church of England archbishops and bishops (26), elected hereditary members (over 800) Largely appointed by the monarch Shared responsibilities: make laws, hold the government to account, and debate the issue Roles: make laws, check and challenge the work of the government and investigate public policy The House of Lords has no veto power over legislation, but can delay some legislation for up to one year and occasionally persuade governments to amend legislation Almost all legislation in Britain is introduced by the Government with only a very small number of Bills - usually on social issues with minimal implications for the public purse - introduced by individual Members of Parliament (they are called Private Members' Bills). In the two chambers of the British legislature, committee chairpersons are allocated between the different parties, roughly in proportion to the size of the party in the House, and the committees are much less powerful than in the US Congress.

 

 The US legislature is the congress which consists of the House of Representatives which is the lower house and the Senate which is the upper house. The House of Representatives. It considers as the House of the People. It comprises 435 representatives. All representatives serve two-year terms. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are directly elected by Congressional District. The House of Representatives power and responsibilities are to bring charges of impeachment against the president and Supreme Court justices, create all bills, and select the president where no presidential candidate receives a majority of electoral votes. The Senate considers as the Upper Chamber. It comprises 100 senators – 2 from each state. The senators serve six-year terms. The Vice President of the US serves as the President of the Senate.

The Senate power and responsibilities are to confirm presidential appointments to the Supreme Court, lower federal courts, and key positions within the executive branch before the appointees can take office, approve or reject international treaties, conduct the trial and act as a jury in cases of impeachment of the president or a member of the Supreme Court. In the United States, because of the separation of powers, a member of Congress and in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the majority party chairs all committees which have considerable power introduces all legislation.

In Britain, the Supreme Court judges are not appointed politically and, like all British courts, avoid deciding it regards as proper to politicians and Parliament. In the UK, no judges are elected. Indeed, very few countries worldwide have judicial elections. Exceptions include Japan and Switzerland. For the judiciary branch in America, the Supreme Court is an intensely political institution. The President appoints its members partisan and its decisions are often highly political and highly controversial.

In the United States, 39 states hold at least some competitive elections to choose judges. When the country was first created, there were no such elections. For example, Mississippi became the first state to require judicial elections in 1832. There are several parties in the UK, each with different ideas and policies. The largest parties include the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), and, in Scotland, the Scottish National Party. In the UK, the Conservatives are the Right of Centre party and Labor is the Left of Centre party. However, the 'Centre' in American politics is marked to the Right of the 'Centre' in British or most European politics. In Britain, there is a Liberal Democrats Party that ideologically sees itself as between Conservative and Labor. In the UK, as well as political parties that seek votes throughout the entire country, there are nationalist political parties that field candidates only in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, respectively.

In the United Kingdom, the two main political parties - Conservative and Labor - win a smaller and declining share of the total vote, with a growing share being taken by the likes of the Liberal Democrats Party and the UK Independence Party at the national level and by the likes of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalist Parties at the devolved level.

All the political parties in the UK hold annual conferences where they debate the policy positions to be adopted by the party, but these conferences do not choose the party leader (which is done through a separate and broader process varying from party to party). While the US political parties. There are two major political parties in America, namely Republican Party, and Democratic Party. The Republicans are the Right of Centre party and the Democrats are the Left of Centre party. Actually, there is no Centre party in this sense of one positioned politically between the Republicans and the Democrats. There are only two parties represented in Congress and both are federal parties. There is no political party that only seeks votes in one state or a selection of states. In America, the Democratic and Republican Parties absolutely dominate federal and state elections, with independents securing only small proportions of the vote. The major parties in the USA have a large-scale congress every four years to choose their candidate for the forthcoming presidential election and ostensibly determine the policy platform of that candidate.

In the UK, the term of members of the House of Commons and therefore of the Government is legally a maximum of five years but traditionally a Prime Minister could call a general election whenever he or she wished and it has been considered 'cowardly' to wait the full five years and so the election has been more typically after around four years. However, the current Coalition Government has enacted legislation to provide for a fixed five-year term except for special circumstances.

Britain does not have a system of primaries and the selection of candidates is normally confined to actual members of the relevant political party in the constituency in question. The British general election lasts around four weeks. Parties and candidates in British elections cannot buy broadcasting time. There are statutory limitations on expenditure for all elections in the UK. Talking about the US election and campaign, in America the term of a President, Senator, or congressional representative is known precisely as four years, six years, and two years respectively, and the dates of the elections are fixed. Candidates for the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives plus a host of other positions below the federal level in the US political system are chosen by a system of primaries in which usually all registered Democratic and Republican voters take part in the candidate's choice for their party in the main election.

 The American general election effectively lasts almost two years, starting with the declaration of candidates for the primaries. American elections depend on vast sums to purchase broadcasting time. Because of the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, effectively there are no limitations on expenditure in American political elections.

 

Advantages and disadvantages of parliamentary government :

Parliamentary government has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of parliamentary government are the parliamentary executive is the collective body which means both the Prime Minister and Cabinet have shared responsibility among their members. They are jointly responsible for all the actions of the government. The executive and legislative branches must be bound by mutual dependence. For this reason, there will be a creation of a powerful government by the fusion of executive and legislature.

 

However, the disadvantages are that the government depends on the support of parliament. The executive is not directly elected, but usually emerges from the elected legislature. For this reason, they can remove the executive from power with a vote of no confidence. There is no separation of power between the executive and legislative branches. For this reason, both branches can’t work independently. The presidential system provides such good advantages and opportunities when they adopt this system.

 In Presidential Democracy, the people are often elected their president directly. Direct elections make the president’s powers more legitimate compared to the powers of a leader who is appointed indirectly. Number two is a separation of power. Presidential Democracy establishes the legislature and the presidency as two parallel structures. This separation allows each arm to check and monitor the other, which prevents the abuse of power. A Presidential Democracy’s separation of the legislature from the executive is occasionally seen as an advantage in that each branch may question the actions of the other.

 Number three is speedy decision-making.

A president vested with strong powers can regularly affect changes speedily. In this way, a Presidential Democracy can respond quickly to emerging situations since the president is often less constrained and does not need approval from other bodies when deciding. The last one is the place of the judiciary in governance. In a Presidential Democracy, the courts possess judicial review power, which can determine unconstitutional laws. These judicial powers check on both the legislature and the executive, which minimizes almost zero instances of abuse of power. There are some advantages as well as opportunities of the presidential system. The first one is elections are directed. It means that the citizens elect their president directly so the power of the president is legitimated. The second advantage is the separation of powers.

 This allows each government arm to check and monitor the other, which prevents the abuse of power. The third pro is speedy decision-making. The president can respond quickly to emerging situations since he or she is less constrained and does not need approval from other bodies when deciding. The last advantage is it is a place of the judiciary in governance as the courts possess judicial review power, which can determine unconstitutional laws. However, there are some disadvantages and challenges of the presidential system too. The first one would be political congestion and barriers. The separation of powers is likely to create an unpleasant and long-lasting political gridlock whenever the legislative majority and the head of state come from various parties.

 

By this, it minimizes accountability by giving the legislature and the president a chance to play blame games. The second con is the obstacles to change leadership. It is hard to remove the president from his office unless the president breaks the law or acts against the constitution. If not then we need to wait until another new election. The third challenge is incompetent public service which the president can appoint whoever he or she wants. Therefore, that person is not subject to any scrutiny or approval by the government’s other arms. The last disadvantage is less effective laws. There is less harmony between the executive and the legislature. The government’s arms are likely to make and implement laws that favor their interests and give less power to the other by ignoring public interests. Thus, these two types of government are similar in the most important way. However, a parliamentary system is more likely to be efficient, while a presidential system allows for the separation of powers and, thereby, greater protection of people’s rights. In terms of government accountability, the UK parliamentary seems to be more effective than the US presidential system because in the UK when all factors are taken into consideration, this system is more accountable than that of the pure presidential one. That is given that the ruling party is checked both within and without the legislative body. The constituent parties have to make their voices heard while the minority party also keeps the ruling party in check. Lastly, the ceremonial head of state also has a say on the path that the parties in power take.

 

As I already mentioned before, there is a separation of power in which the presidential democracy establishes the legislature and the presidency as two parallel structures. This separation allows each arm to check and monitor the other, which prevents the abuse of power. A Presidential Democracy’s separation of the legislature from the executive is occasionally seen as an advantage in that each branch may question the actions of the other. And also, the US has domestic stability as a president, using a predetermined term, is likely to offer more stable leadership. In a presidential system, elections are fixed.

These predetermined elections become a welcome check on the executive’s powers, which keep the executive checked and on its toes. We can assume that the most effective government system would be a presidential system that is more stable or sufficient than the parliamentary system. For better future directions of the government system, select Ministers should be called to explain when things go wrong under their watch – even if they are no longer in office. Committees get the information they need more quickly and have the resources to use it. Parliament should recall former ministers to give evidence when policies they have presided over have gone wrong.

 This would mean holding the architects of policies (such as the ‘hostile environment’ or failed probation reforms) to account directly, as well as their political successors, and the officials who advised them, particularly when foreseeable risks that were not flagged up to the minister arise in the course of a project. This is just the recommendation in the report according to the Institute for Government, which aims to address problems in the relationship between ministers and civil servants, the complexities of modern government, and the culture of blame. Others include clarifying what people get for the money spent on public services, improving specialist skills across Whitehall to prevent repeated failures, and better scrutinizing the links between local public services.

 

The future direction of the presidential system is to avoid the political gridlock of the president and other members in the government, even though they come from different parties. They should cooperate and work together to come up with effective policies. Also, in terms of leadership, the presidential system should make it more likely to be not very difficult to remove the unpopular president from the office, and last but not least, is to avoid self-interests happening in each arm of the government system. By doing so, it can enhance and maintain the collective interests of all. That is all about the comparison and contrast of the parliamentary system in the UK and the presidential system in the US.

 

The founder of the nation also suggested the presidential form of Govt for Pakistan as reported by a prominent anchorperson, Mr.Sabir Shakir. Please click the following link to know, please.

Quaid-e-Azam Was also a Supporter of the Islamic Presidential System | Why PMLN is Upset - YouTube

Muhammad Israr Umar An NGO worker for the last 17 years muhammadisrarumar6@gmail.com