After 8 months in power, and lashing on PML N and PPP making them responsible for every issue in Pakistan, PTI is now switching towards another debate and that is to install Imran Khan as President of Pakistan or in another case to bring some other person suitable for PTI and establishment.
In current scenario political leaderships of all sides are looking like Donald Trump with lashing on each other instead of standing together to address the issues of electricity and water that have gone out of sight in a country with temperature going above 50C. People are dying but these Donald Trumps are abusing each other just to pass the time.
This obviously raises the question that what is required for Pakistan to bring it under the umbrella of good governance.
From 1947 we are engulfed in a debate that which political system suits Pakistan whether a system with Parliament or a system with presidential form of government.
Political thinkers and philosophers have given different theories on political institutions and various systems. They have present different theories of government. Mostly six forms of government are suggested: namely, Monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, democracy, mobocracy and autocracy or dictatorship and the best is democracy – the golden mean rule. It is the most popular form of government practiced in the world. Two kinds of this system are important: Parliamentary form of government and Presidential form of government, the ‘Westminster model’ and the ‘American model.
Separation of powers is one of the cardinal principles. Fundamental rights and liberties are ensured in both the forms. Electoral system is based on adult franchise and one vote for each individual. Equality before law and rule of law are two important precepts. Parliament is supreme and has the primary function of making laws. Judiciary interprets the law and is the final arbiter. They have the power of judicial review to create the balance of power.
No doubt every system has its minuses or pluses, but three factors are utmost important in designing any system. First one is demographic and geographical location of the country. Second one is the culture and beliefs of its inhabitants and third one are its history with its experiences.
One should remember that countries are made for the people and people are not made for the countries so in adopting any system the welfare and progress of its people always remain at the top.
Mankind has a history of almost 5000 years with lot of changes. However Pakistan has just seen 70 years from the date of its birth. With this small span of time it has seen presidential as well a parliamentary system. It has also seen military rules under four Generals. With parliamentary systems it has seen corruption at the top with no accountability but with Military rules we have seen dismemberment of the country, discontentment of different nationalities living in and then sweeping wave of religious beliefs creating sectarian war and Taliban with ISIL at the moment.
In Pakistan different kind of political parties are found i.e. Democratic, liberal, relational and religious political parties. To govern the country towards prosperity, development, and success, it is necessary for the political parties to establish their real objectives that are missing right now. First of all they have to seek power through constructional means, without rigging in general elections, and to make the government according to aspirations of the people of Pakistan. Their interest must be the articulation of masses. They always have to talk about national interest and try to achieve them frequently. These political parties have to make unity and discipline among themselves and aim to unite the country in the same way. They have to educate the masses about the national and international crises and make frequent solution to these problems. To respect the general will rather than individual. These political parties have to make effective accountability system to eradicate corruption from Pakistan. This is the only way for these political parties to put Pakistan in to a new horizon of prosperity and social welfare state. However the establishment’s modus operandi to have obedient political parties in its pocket continues till date.
It is notable that various mal-practices such as horse-trading, nepotism, bribery, illegal obligations and other forms of corruption are very common among our politicians. In fact, the elite group of elected members uses powers of their public offices to advance their personal interests including engagement in politics of THANA and KUCHHERY (Police and Court), earnestly seeking allotment of development and discretion funds and timely steps of sycophancy to please the top party leaders. Poor educational background makes them inactive and soundless during debate sessions to approve or reject key issues, requiring parliamentary endorsement. They also remain oblivious of world politics and philosophical aspirations of great leaders like Nelson Mandela. Thus, they promote their personal interests, and show total callousness towards torment of their voters.
Pakistan’s political parties lack mutual trust and understanding. The culture of political dialogue has never taken roots in Pakistan. Mainstream as well as the ethno-regional parties lack internal debate over policy alternatives. Their priorities and preferences are not an outcome of household debates and discussion. Rather, they are identified with their leaders.
Democracy should start at the grassroots level and nothing should be imposed on the people by holding elections at mohallah level than to the area than to the cities and provinces and at Federal Level. This is altogether missing in Pakistan. In Presidential form of governments with Generals in command Local Bodies system was evolved that fulfill day to day needs of the people whereas in Parliamentary form of government this basic pillar of democracy was missing as they relied mostly on parliament and provincial assemblies. However both sides did this mainly to save their own seats.
Hence there is a need to create permanent mechanisms for continued accountability within the democratic structures of the state and the parties. There is also a need to look at the problem of corruption in depth and take steps to root it out because not only are the politicians corrupt but the whole of our society is steeped in corruption.
Parties are weak because they lack financial resources. Electoral candidates are relatively strong and do not depend on their respective parties for funding. Unless parties in Pakistan engage themselves in fund-raising activities and thereby finance their electoral and non-electoral activities like political education and training, they will continue to woo local influence for support rather than lend their support to promising individuals within their folds. Secondly, the country needs to debate and encourage the culture of political donations.
Above all, political parties have to draw their strength from citizens for sustainable democracy instead of looking for behind-the-scene intrigues to grab power. The extended role of intelligence networks in the making and breaking of political parties could only be frustrated when citizens are made capable to vanguard their political rights through legitimate political institutions, i.e. political parties.
Forward looking everybody now in Pakistan is on the back foot. Establishment cannot physically take the power as it has to fight on borders as well as within the country. Further experimenting with four Martial-laws can endanger the very existing of Pakistan. Political Parties have also lost their credibility. Religious fanaticism has made the Pakistan part of Middle East to fight against ISIL and organizations like that. Further it has to correct the position on its eastern border with India with strength and clear vision. This has put all the stakeholders’ i.e. Political parties as well as establishment to come on one page. Everybody now requires some kind of changes in their own boundaries. The current parliamentary system in what form it is may be allowed to continue till all institutions at the helm of affairs adjust their structures by accommodating each other’s point of view.