Pakistan: Presidential or Parliamentary System?

[nuclearpak]

---

---

Ironic that in the Islamic Republic of pakistan, the President and governors don't pay taxes, and have immunity!

I don't think that the current executives need the 1.5 lac salary per month!

[nuclearpak]

Ironic that in the Islamic Republic of pakistan, the President and governors don't pay taxes, and have immunity!

I don't think that the current executives need the 1.5 lac salary per month!

[Developereo]

I would have liked a fourth option: makes no difference.

Anyway, your proposed system gives far too much power to the executive. It's all well and good when we have Imran Khan in mind, but what happens if a smooth talking tyrant waltzes into the Presidency? Or a well meaning person becomes corrupted by power after coming into office?

Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not look at existing systems?

Take the American system of checks and balances between the three (executive, legislative and judicial) branches. Like any 'democratic' system, it's good only as long as the core assumption underling democracy, i.e. accountability, works. Without accountability, it doesn't matter what system we put in place, and simply switching systems will not address this fundamental deficiency in Pakistan.

Even within a presidential system, the corrupt parliament will always find a way to block the president's policies, or override a presidential veto. And, as I mentioned above, we need to give these powers to the parliament in case we end up with a Trojan horse in the presidency.

[nuclearpak]

Another change needed is that the NAB and all the accountability offices are completely detached from the government. If a PM appoints the CHairman NAB, he is never going to put up a corruption case against the PM.

As Develepereo said, every system has it's flaws and loopholes, and people will exploit them.

THe current system can work as well, if the right people are there. The system proposed by longbrained can also work if all the right people are there, but when some time goes by, and a Zardari comes in, it's going to be same old same old.

[Developereo]

a Zardari comes in, it's going to be same old same old.

Systems must be designed with the worst case scenario in mind, not the best.

Imagine a presidential system with Bilawal Zardari, erm, Bhutto (jiyay Bhutto!) as the President and a bunch of little-Sharifs running the Parliament.

[nuclearpak]

Systems must be designed with the worst case scenario in mind, not the best.

Imagine a presidential system with Bilawal Zardari, erm, Bhutto (jiyay Bhutto!) as the President and a bunch of little-Sharifs running the Parliament.

I never get it, why a reformist, visionary, and a educated person never come in power, but these feudals.

A capable person in the Foreign ministry rather than Miss Khar, a disciplinarian and a businessman kind if person in the railway, rather than Bilour and the other guy who is GM railway, a better qualified person for IT ministry rather than Raja Pervaiz Ashraf. I could go on and on.

I do think that things may change for the better in the coming years if time is given, but let's hope that there is something left till then.

[Leviza]

i have my own view, any system can work only if there are patriotic, loyal ppl in politics,

[lem34]

This is simply not the case, the financial meltdown is not emblematic of the failure of capitalism, after all, those economies that have managed to keep stronger regulations have avoided the worst consequences of the financial meltdown - which is itself a story of criminal behavior and negligence.

But we earlier said that we should be wary of ideology - and I'm not suggesting that capitalism is some sort sacred cow, what I am suggesting is that we look carefully at the behavior of people - why won't they pay taxes, why do they destroy public property, why do they not respect property --- these are all elements of a civic religion and good citizenship - so how can we get people to buy in?? The only way is to DELIVER -- you are right, these are not stupid people, they will pay in and buy in, once they see that any system can and will deliver

On the failure of Capitalism I would say this downturn is a systemic failure. The failure is due mainly down to de-regulation and failure to enforce rules. Capitalism is based on supply and demand, as well as risk and reward. If one takes the risk of cheating and gets away with it, he gets a reward, this leads to more cheating (heard about Mr Ponzi). By not properly regulating the system, cheaters got rewards. Multiply this by several million, and you get our current issues. If regulations had been implemented, this would never have happened. Instead, we might have had another mild recession and your cyclic suggestion would have resulted.

UN report on the matter:


http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/gds20091overview_en.pdf

I do not want to go too far off topic and argue this point with you as you have said this is no holy cow. But you might like to read the UN article above. One could argue that with deregulation this systemic failure would not have occurred but then supporters of communism could say but if for x y z...

I think we should look at all systems and countries and learn from their failures and or successes. We should not be scared of experimenting and of course the starting point as Muse suggests start of by looking at human nature.


Back on topic I think that a move towards a President system as suggested by Longbrained for the reasons he suggested is a good idea that I would certainly support. In fact Longbrained I am happy to write an article with you and get some Pakistani newspapers to print it and get more people thinking on these lines..

r (what does it matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice)

Earlier we said we should mean what we say, (say what we mean).

I agree with what you say but worry because we are going down a road of the ends justify the means which .....

[lem34]

[QUOTE=muse;2990065]We said earlier that the foundation, the bedrock of any system is ECONOMICS, check out his little piece , tell me, why exemptions for these but none for me and you who said "buy in"m I distinctly heard some low life say "legitimacy":

Income tax exemptions granted to the president, provincial governors, chief of army staff and judges of the superior court, however, will not be withdrawn[QUOTE]

Mate this is not economics its "legalised theft". I am reminded of a meeting I had with the daughter of a wealthy (est over 300 mill US) man. I had started a company 18 months earlier and said to her well if it does not start going into profitability over the next 6 months I was going to cut and or sell it.

She looked at me with some surprise and said but we have had a company that loses money since 1965 but we would never let it go. It dawned on me that these guys were running a bunch of loss making companies but would supplement their income by what we would simply call fraud in the UK eg loan defaulters or rigging and manipulating Pakistani currency

Like I said we need to sort a few thousand people in Pakistan out who have sense of entitlement and will do whatever they can to retain their position in Pakistan

[Developereo]

I never get it, why a reformist, visionary, and a educated person never come in power, but these feudals.

A capable person in the Foreign ministry rather than Miss Khar, a disciplinarian and a businessman kind if person in the railway, rather than Bilour and the other guy who is GM railway, a better qualified person for IT ministry rather than Raja Pervaiz Ashraf. I could go on and on.

I do think that things may change for the better in the coming years if time is given, but let's hope that there is something left till then.

Just having a good heart or good ideas is not enough. It takes charisma and/or money to get elected. A lot of money. If you don't have the money, you better have the charisma (or a documented track record) so others will give you their money.

[nuclearpak]

Just having a good heart or good ideas is not enough. It takes charisma and/or money to get elected. A lot of money. If you don't have the money, you better have the charisma (or a documented track record) so others will give you their money.

thats politics

[lem34]

Some of you might like to read this:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ihsg/pub...pdf/No-7-1.PDF

[longbrained]

On the failure of Capitalism I would say this downturn is a systemic failure. The failure is due mainly down to de-regulation and failure to enforce rules. Capitalism is based on supply and demand, as well as risk and reward. If one takes the risk of cheating and gets away with it, he gets a reward, this leads to more cheating (heard about Mr Ponzi). By not properly regulating the system, cheaters got rewards. Multiply this by several million, and you get our current issues. If regulations had been implemented, this would never have happened. Instead, we might have had another mild recession and your cyclic suggestion would have resulted.

UN report on the matter:


http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/gds20091overview_en.pdf

I do not want to go too far off topic and argue this point with you as you have said this is no holy cow. But you might like to read the UN article above. One could argue that with deregulation this systemic failure would not have occurred but then supporters of communism could say but if for x y z...

I think we should look at all systems and countries and learn from their failures and or successes. We should not be scared of experimenting and of course the starting point as Muse suggests start of by looking at human nature.


Back on topic I think that a move towards a President system as suggested by Longbrained for the reasons he suggested is a good idea that I would certainly support. In fact Longbrained I am happy to write an article with you and get some Pakistani newspapers to print it and get more people thinking on these lines..



I agree with what you say but worry because we are going down a road of the ends justify the means which .....

I also think the problem is deeper than that being admitted. Only countries which had socialistic elements in them like Scandinavian nations have survived it. Others who relied only on capitalism are having problems. It is better to have a hybrid system. China is an example of communism and capitalism. We can work out something on the lines of socialism and capitalism.

[lem34]

I also think the problem is deeper than that being admitted. Only countries which had socialistic elements in them like Scandinavian nations have survived it. Others who relied only on capitalism are having problems. It is better to have a hybrid system. China is an example of communism and capitalism. We can work out something on the lines of socialism and capitalism.

But then it should not be called either and basically we should do our own thing lol

[longbrained]

---

---

But then it should not be called either and basically we should do our own thing lol

No doubt. We are among the most intelligent on this forum.