Islamabad [Pakistan], January 25 (ANI): After Pakistan's Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Ali Muhammad Khan revealed about preparations to bring a presidential form of government in place of its parliamentary one in the country, the media is questioning the controversial idea.
Aijaz Mangi, writing in Sindhi publication, Pahenji Akhbar, said that bringing presidential format in Pakistan will not make Pakistan, America-like powerful in the world.
"We are living in a country where we get to see dictatorship even in 21st century, we are living in a country where elected representatives and ministers rejoice on reading military general's statements, we are living in a country where words like civilian leadership and military leadership are used with pride, we are living in a country for which it is often claimed that it is army and establishment and not peoples' power behind it," said Mangi.
He said that deliberate rumours are being spread that hectic preparations are afoot to bring a presidential form of government in place of its parliamentary one in the country.
The commentators and political observers are now questioning -- Will a change of format of government suffice for running the show/for running the country's affairs. If the answer is yes, then what reasons can be cited in support of such an answer?
Can anyone raise any voice in front of a person with a pistol? If anyone thinks that poverty can be gotten rid of with the advent of the presidential format of government, then one can only pity such a thinker! reported Pak vernacular media.
Taking a potshot at Prime Minister Imran Khan, who had lived a substantial part of his life in the UK, the vernacular media said, "Now, his children are in the UK. The secret of the UK's progress/development has nothing to do with the government head there being a Prime Minister. When Russia was known as the Soviet Union, power was vested in the hands of the President. When the Soviet Union crashed, that time too its head was President Gorbachev."
Aijaz also gave the example of India and its vibrant democracy, he said, "In South Asia, India is no weak country. There is no presidential format of government there. India too has a parliamentary system. If we say our parliamentary system has failed, then the first question we can raise is -- Has the parliamentary system been allowed to function in the country? How can we talk about the success or failure of this system when half the time of the country's history /formation, we have had direct or indirect dictatorship?
In a veiled attack, the Pahenji Akhbar article also questioned the interference of Pakistan's military establishment in the working of parliamentary government in Pakistan.
"If the presidential form is good for Pakistan, then there is no harm in doing away with parliamentary form, but the first condition is -- Let the parliamentary system be allowed to function first. We have a parliamentary system but we all know how it functions and under whose shadows/domination and pressures it works. If the country were allowed to function truly as per the spirit of the 1973 constitution, conditions would have been altogether different in the country," said the article.
It further urged that the country should be allowed to function as per the constitution.
"If betterment in the country is main task /reason for the change of format of government, then the first condition should be that let country first be allowed to function as per the constitution. What do words like law and justice mean in a country where forces like establishment are above the constitution?" said the article.
Further, the Sindhi publication also laid stress on the rule of law and delivery of justice as the two basic issues in Pakistan that need to be implemented.
"There is no guarantee that presidential form will be delivered. Rule of law and delivery of justice. These two are basic issues in Pakistan. Sadly, governments did not run the country as per rule of law in past. And, the current government too did not deliver justice to the people. The parliamentary system can function well enough only when none is above law and all are treated equally in the eyes of law. If there is no rule of law, then no system can deliver, be it parliamentary or presidential," said the article.
"Let there be any system, but it must be left free to function. We can pin no hopes on any system that is held, hostage. A system held hostage will have controversial and discriminatory laws that can deliver no justice," it added. (ANI)