Presidential or Parliamentary Government for Pakistan

 

Pakistan needs what: a presidential or parliamentary form of government? This debate is not a new one. But now, the debate has been reached in the premises of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. As per facts, two petitions have been moved under article 184(3) of the Constitution, 1973 for seeking directions for a referendum to adopting a presidential or parliamentary form of government.

The petition presents a deplorable state of conditions in Pakistan. The country has become the sixth most populous country in the world with an estimated population of 212 million people and it may reach 403 million by 2050. With one of the world’s largest youth population, as 64%, the country is ranked as 122nd out of 190 countries in the world in terms of quality and accessibility of health care. As 25% of Pakistan’s population lives below the poverty line, the average human development index and the GDP are the lowest as compared to other South Asian countries like India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan. And behind all these, one of the chief reasons is Pakistan’s fragile political system.

            Likewise, it also has been taken as a ground that “in our parliamentary system, members of parliament are in the habit of changing loyalties and are out to blackmail and pressurize the government to promote their interests”. That is why the current government has to use the power of the president to promulgate ordinance frequently. Premier has also highlighted the legislative obstacles on FATF legislative issues in this regard. Moreover, with the adoption of the 18^th amendment, parochial and racial discrimination increases not decreases.

            But the time has come that Pakistan must adopt the presidential system. The foremost reason is that in the presidential system the head of state is usually elected through a direct election. So, the citizens would have a much clear option to choose the one as their leader. As it can be observed that in our country, voters have limited choices to choose. They are bound due to feudal mind-set and undue-influence to not to vote as per their wishes, since there is no option to ‘vote for prime minister’ like one can vote for ‘president’ under a presidential system.

            Moreover, the stability of government is another advantage—and that Pakistan needs the most. Because opposition parties would not be able to blackmail, like here, to displace the government by hook or by crook, where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, etc make the effective policy-making and implementation near to impossible. And it is prima facie in our country that the Prime Minister is being always tried to be contained in a continuous threat that he may lose his position solely because his party may at anytime lose requisite seats in parliament, even though he may still be popular nationally.

Furthermore, the presidential system will allow for the separation of powers in a true sense, as the legislature will be a completely different structure and institution. And thereby, an effective system of checks and balances will also be placed in governance. Besides, by adopting the presidential system, the president will have more powers to work speedily and effectively; thereby the uniform policy-making along with uniform policy-implementation will also bring positive outcomes to subdue the parochial and racial discrimination. And if citizens cloyed with one person being their president, they may next time flatly refuse to vote him directly, instead of being compelled to vote for their constituency only. And one president with having two-terms to be elected consistently will add icing on the cake to utilize the fruits of democracy.

Although one may argue that there are a lot of drawbacks in the presidential system too: for instance, the rhetoric of authoritarianism, deadlocks between executive and legislature, rigid form of government, nepotism, and favoritism, etc. but all these may not suffice to counter the above-stated reasonings for the presidential system in Pakistan, because the disadvantages of the parliamentary system in Pakistan, currently, have outweighed the disadvantages of the hopeful presidential system.

Besides, the fundamental disadvantage of a parliamentary system that the Prime Minister is unable to be elected unless his party wins the whole country’s election, the other disadvantage is that there is no independent body to oppose and veto legislation approved by parliament, and thus there is a lack of cohesive check and balance system. Moreover, the instability factor, in Pakistan—can never be removed—because whenever the minority parties want, they through coalition, can bring down the majority party’s government.

Furthermore, there are other disadvantages of the parliamentary system in Pakistan which include the unqualified legislators: to be appointed as an assistant, secretary, or even a clerk who understands and runs the basic computer, qualification of Masters level with written test amongst thousands of competitors, then psychological tests and interviews are required; and to be elected as representative the only requirement is mone, a lot of money. Eventually, these unqualified representatives placed more reliance on bureaucracy. Moreover, the Ministers or the executive should be from the ruling party, and thus, unqualified replaces the qualified experts for the job. As it has been held in recent judgment by Islamabad High Court, that advisers to Prime Minister are not Ministers. Last but not least, it is also obvious, in Pakistan, that personal interests outweigh national interests, and the only issues being mostly discussed in the parliament debates, media channels, newspapers, and even in election campaigns, etc are these personal interests.

Since the majority of the developed states are being run through the Presidential system, for instance, the United States of America, Russia, China, France, Turkey, etc the parliamentary system is mostly used in third world countries. This system is given to us by the English Coloniest rulers, and this system has nothing to do with our religion, culture, or with our national norms and behaviors. And forget that if this system is effective in England or Japan, then it will be effective here too. As our citizens, cultures, and norms can never be the same as theirs, so as the system of government too. Therefore, it is high time that a referendum must be called in Pakistan on the question of adoption of the presidential or parliamentary form of government and let it be decided by the citizens.

 

 

Hafiz Muhammad Azeem

 

The writer is an advocate of the high court, an LL.M. and LL.B. (hons). He teaches law. He writes research-based articles on various topics. You can reach him at Khokhar.azeem@yahoo.com and can read his articles on hmazeem.blospot.com.

    

  

 

 

Women March and life-cycle

Balanced women March and life-cycle

The balance lies at the core of the universe. Without balance whole universe may not stand even a second. Big planets, huge stars, immeasurable galaxies, families of planets and stars, all are swimming in the ocean of balance. At Earth too, life exists due to the balance.

The balance lies in the incomputable food supply chain. Such as, Blue Whale eats thousands of tiny living organisms. If it would not eat them, those tiny organisms may cause an overabundance, resultantly, the whole food supply chain of the ocean will be destroyed.

Similarly, this balance lies amid millions of species living in the earth. Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous exist together. One extinction certainly would result in the other one's extinction. Airy-birds, aquatic-animals, terrestrial-species all are sin-qua-non for each other.

Likewise, human-life too stands on balance. Male and female are two sides of a scale. To weight something at scale, we place the fixed weights at one pan of the scale and the unknown mass of weight on the other. Then we balance.

Nature too balances life on scale through male and female. When God creates Adam, Adam felt anxious and remained restless—even in Jannah—until the life-scale was not get balanced by the creation of Eve. Moreover, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Jannah was not more painful than the separation between them on Earth. Both cries a lot and seek forgiveness due to the separation amid them.   

Women March, also, is incomplete without the other inseparable element of the life-scale: the Male.

No doubt, women have been deprived of their rights. From cradle to the grave they live in pitiable conditions. By cradle means, their inherited rights bestowed by nature: specifically their inheritance. Brothers, who are guardians of sisters, with impunity and cunningly firstly took into possession of the females’ inherited property as a guardian, then deprived them permanently. Thousands of cases are pending adjudication in the courts of law in this regard only.

At the stage youthfulness, they are deprived of firstly university-life; secondly, willful marriage; thirdly, of all kinds of liberties at in-laws-house; fourthly, by deeming to be natural-servant of kids and in-laws; and so on. All are against the Sharia and Constitution. All are against humanity and democracy. All are against civilization and liberty.  

However, this is one side of the life-scale. What about the other side of the life-scale? Whether these deprivations are with the females only? Have the males are enjoying all of the fundamental human rights with liberty and without any hindrance. Does the male not deprived of their rights? Indeed, they are too victims. They too have no right to choose their life-partners. They too are being killed in the name honor and rubbish caste-system. Hence, both are oppressed at their place. Both are part and parcel of life-cycle.

The life-cycle has two wheels: one male and one female. The chain is bounded by at front side by chain-ring and backside with rear cogs. The peddles are being pushed by nature. The rear wheel is the female who is the real force in running the life-cycle. The front wheel is the male who has to face all odds and obstacles and he is supposed to make way for the rear wheel so that it may not get entangled with any potholes on the road.

As per Newton’s first law of motion: “every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that straight by force impressed on it”. In the life-cycle, the chain is nature. It is the force of God. The chain is designed in such a manner that unless the rear wheel continues its push and provides the force the front wheel will face and pass through all of the potholes on road. This cycle will keep on moving unless some external force or internal mechanics halt its motion or try to change its state.

Hence, Women’s March without taking Male on board is considered to be a halt on the life-cycle and the balance of nature. Women's rights are part and parcel of men’s rights. Both rights are each other’s rights. One’s right is the liability of the other. One may not have the right if the other one would not have its own.

What should have been done is that the Males must march alongside Females and raise voice for them. They are the front wheels. They are supposed to protect and make way for the rear wheel. And Females too should not attempt to disturb the balance of the nature and mechanics of the life-cycle.

In a nutshell, there no competition between the two wheels of life-cycle. There no superiority and inferiority concept amid these two wheels. Nature creates a balance between them. Both must fight for each other. As one wheel alone could not survive on the road filled with a lot of potholes, jumps, and obstacles. Lastly, front-wheel (male) must always make the way for the rear-wheel (female) and the rear-wheel (female) must always back up and push the front wheel (male) to move forward by having hands in hands together through the chain of nature (balance). 

Hafiz Muhammad Azeem and Anjum Shakeel

The writers are lawyers.

           

         

        

“Public Executions” and “Dignity”

Dissection of the idea of “Public Executions” and “Dignity”

Having seen the continuous surge in the shocking, ghastly, and dreadful cases of child abuse in Pakistan, the Members of the National Assembly left with no choice except to resolve and vote for the “Public Execution” of the culprits. The resolution passed with a majority vote. However, some parts of society’s intelligentsia expressed their resentment; considering it a violation of Right to Dignity. Does the concept of public execution really violate the right to dignity?

Erin Daly in his book “Dignity Rights: Courts, Constitution, and the worth human Person” expressly talked about the concept of dignity. Having a long history, the concept of dignity can be divided into two parts: one, being a constitutional value; second, being not a constitutional value or right. “As to constitutional value, human dignity is the value of a person within the society”. Meaning thereby, it varies from the constitution to the constitution and as per to norms and mores of a society.

To consider each society’s norms and mores as one: arguing that the idea of public execution is against the norms and concepts of the United Nations and its laws, is nothing but an attempt to undermine each society’s dignity. Yet it is a separate debate. But the crux of above terse three lines is that: dignity varies from society to society and morality. One's morality may often become an offense for the other. Thus, it is an absurdity to consider the whole world’s morality and mores as one. So as dignity.

As Aharon Barak said in the forwarded portion of the above-mentioned book: “the concept of human dignity will be determined in accordance with the perspectives of the enlightened public in Israel, in accordance with the purpose of Basic Law…” As a natural outcome: here the dignity must be interpreted as per to our mores and norms. 

“At the center of human dignity is the sanctity and liberty of life. At its foundation are the autonomy of the individual will, the freedom of choice, and the freedom of man to act as a free creature”, said Aharon Barak in another constitutional case in the Supreme Court of Israel. So, the dignity revolves around the concept of freedom; but the freedom is not unbridled and it is and was always limited freedom. Unless one does not interfere in the freedom of the other, it is unlimited; it is limited as soon as one transgresses into the others’ freedom. This is what the great proponent of liberty “Jhon Stuart Mill” taught us.

Under Article 14 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the concept of dignity is preserved as: “the dignity of man… shall be inviolable”. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1994 in a suo-motu case on the question of public hangings has held that “the dignity of every man is not subject to law but is an unqualified guarantee… inviolable and execution in public, even the worst criminal appears to violate the dignity of man”. But what is the purpose of punishment; if it is really to save the dignity of the transgressor, the one who dreadfully violates the dignity of a child; then what is the value of the dignity of the child? Could he be satisfied, if the sinner is punished with all his due respect?  

 Needless to reiterate here that, liberty is not unlimited: and dignity is entangled with liberty; if one violates the liberty and dignity of the other, he should be deprived of the dignity of his own. Dignity is inviolable: yes, but not when one transgresses and depraves the one from dignity. It is itself against the dignity to think: let the sinner be kept his dignity. As one the purpose of the punishment is retribution: the satisfaction of the victim, not of the society.

Amongst five paramount purposes of punishment: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution, the retribution is the one deals with the victim's satisfaction. True, that crime is considered against society, but it is the victim who is the most suffered one. Rest just can empathize with the victim’s sufferings. So, it must be his satisfaction and his retribution. Moreover, the utilitarian concept of punishment is the deterrence: they rationale it as an exemplary act of the state so that the habitual offenders may deter and refrain from their sins. Jeremy Bentham is the chief proponent of this theory; he argued that sentences should be calculated to be sufficient to deter others from committing the offence.  

Therefore, what are we achieving by not publically executing the transgressors: especially the hardened, desperate and dangerous criminals; one who violates the dignity of a child? The prime considerations should be the dignity of the child, why should it be of the offender? Moreover, if one argues that—as it is being argued in newspapers and articles—the deterrence and retribution punishments do not serve the purpose: it does not diminish the crime rate; to those, the answering-question is: whether the incarceration serves your purpose: have incarceration—count it even from a century—brought forth the results? Do the habitual offenders have been treated? Could you consider, that you can do it? How much time do you need more? Thus, the incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution theories are serving the purpose anymore. It is time to look at retribution and deterrence theories.

Last but not least, as per our norms and mores, Islam too has had the concept of retribution for the punishment. As in retribution, the same injury is caused to the offender as a punishment: what if the injury is caused to the dignity? Then, should it not be caused to the dignity of the offender? For the clarification, needlessly, it is pertinent to describe here that injury is to the body, mind, and reputation in criminal law. Can we extract the “Dignity” from the term “Reputation”? Certainly, we cannot. As the idea is: "Life for life, eye for an eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal" (Quran5:45); so, here it should be as well: “Dignity for Dignity”.

Hafiz Muhammad Azeem.

The writer is an advocate of the high court and writes on various topics. He can be reached at Khokhar.azeem@yahoo.com. His articles can be accessed on hmazeem.blospot.com. He holds an LL.M. from the Punjab University and teaches law.