There is much talk and chatter around town about a ‘Presidential system’ of government. Actor turned news anchor/political analyst Mr. Hamza Ali Abbasi is one of the many public figures advocating for a ‘Presidential form of government’ on all public forums. While the Pakistan government has categorically rejected the truth value of such rumors, many people close to the government continue to talk about this. The two other mainstream opposition parties in the Parliament have voiced their vehement opposition to such a move.

Now, whether or not such a change is ‘possible’ is something that will be discussed at the end, first let’s look at what is being talked about. What are the pros and cons here? Pakistan currently has a parliamentary form of democracy similar to that of the United Kingdom (UK), while the United States of America (USA) has a presidential form of democracy. So, what is the difference?

The fundamental branches of a state are the executive (the one which carries out the functioning of the state), the legislature (one who makes the laws that govern the functioning of the state) and lastly the judiciary (to uphold the laws written in the constitution and interpret them). In a parliamentary form of government, the executive and the legislature is a combined unit while the judiciary is independent. To put it into context, the Pakistani population elects the members of the National and Provincial Assemblies who make the laws that govern the nation. It is from within these two bodies that the Prime Minister/Chief Ministers and their cabinets are formed.

So very simply, in Pakistan and also the UK, the members of Parliament are also the ones who govern the state and form the executive. The executive is accountable to the Parliament, they can be questioned by the Parliament and can also be removed (by a vote of no-confidence). The Prime Minister and his/her cabinet must maintain a majority within the Parliament to continue to function and carry out their day to day governance as it is the Parliament which passes the budget and all the relevant laws. The judiciary remains independent, it acts as a balance of power for the Parliament. While Pakistan, like India, has a ‘President’ who is elected by the Parliament who is also not a member of the Parliament, but that role is largely ceremonial (according to the original form of the constitution). The President must sign all laws recommended by the Prime Minister and sign on all appointments recommended by the Prime Minister. The only real power that the Pakistani President has is perhaps awarding someone a presidential pardon (which can also be recommended by the Prime Minister and the President must sign it).

Contrastingly in the US, the President is directly elected and forms the ‘executive’. The heads of government departments, the ‘secretaries’ are appointed directly by the president and are not members of Congress or the Senate (houses of Parliament), although they usually need to be voted on by Congress (the lower house). The President, however, can pass ‘executive order’ which are completely independent of the Parliament and can bypass them, the President can also invoke a national emergency and bypass the budget allocation process as well (can not provide budgets for their projects otherwise) like Donald Trump recently did to allocate money for ‘building the wall’. The President can also veto laws passed by the Parliament if he/she does not agree with it, which in turn can be overridden by a 2/3^rd majority vote in the Senate. The President can also be impeached by the houses of Parliament (like Nixon after Watergate). This system works in a way that the three branches of the state keep in check each other, the President (executive) checks the Parliament, the judiciary generally keeps in check both and the Parliament holds certain powers over the judiciary and the President.

Is this what people generally mean when they talk about a ‘Presidential system’ in Pakistan? Probably not. People mostly reminisce about former dictatorships in Pakistan when talking about a Presidential system. Ayub, Zia, and Musharraf governed the state as a Presidential one (with their own caveats, though Zia mostly did under martial law) unlike the one in the US but more like an authoritarian one where they had far-reaching powers to do as they please, dissolve the parliament and not have any checks on them.

Both forms have their advantages and disadvantages. Something that needs to be considered that an immediate shift from a particular form state to another would not allow stability in the future. Democracy as a system needs to continue for a particular time so that it can evolve and adapt to the society at hand. Pakistan as a system is better today than it was in 2008, perhaps it will get even better for years to come.

Just for the sake of argument, if we were to change the existing state structure in Pakistan. Let’s see how it can possibly happen. There would be a need for a constitutional amendment to be moved in the Parliament and would need to be passed by 2/3^rd majority, in both houses (The PTI maintains a simple majority by just a few votes with the support of its coalition partners). It is fair to assume that such an amendment would affect the autonomy that the provinces enjoy, so this would further require a 2/3^rd majority vote in each provincial assembly as well to be finally signed into law by the President of Pakistan. This can further be challenged by a constitutional petition put forth in the Supreme Court of Pakistan because it is likely to come into conflict with the fundamental spirit of the 1973 constitution and can be struck down by the Supreme Court as unlawful.