Presidential vs parliamentary systerm

In an attempt to divert attention from the failures of those who rule over the country, a raging debate is going on, whether the parliamentary system is suitable for the country and whether the country will fare better under a powerful president. As if a powerful president is likely to be a benevolent ruler who has the interests of the people at heart. History shows that this cannot happen.

In a parliamentary system, such as the one we have, politicians are likely to be highly corrupt (like Nawaz and Zardari). But we saw greater corruption when dictators were at the helm. Ayub was declared to be the savior of the country when he seized power, but as the years went by, he came to rely on the same corrupt politicians he had replaced. Even though the country progressed during his earlier years in power, the 1965 war took a heavy toll on the economy and inflation soared. No wonder the people came out on the streets to overthrow him. The same happened with Zia and Musharraf, both were hated towards the end of their careers. Both thought they were invincible, that the people loved them and both were autocratic. Yet they too failed to deliver.

The real problem is that we have a corrupt elite with tentacles in all branches of the government. Our politicians have relatives in the army, judiciary and all government institutions. Frequently a minister has a brother who is a prominent member of a party in opposition (Ayub's brother was the leader of the opposition). No wonder there is so much corruption in the country. There is no solution to our problems except dividing the country into twenty seven provinces. That way, more people will be able to partake in politics and our tax revenue will flow down to the poor.