Political personalization is a “process in which the political weight of the individual actor in the political

process increases over time, while the centrality of the political group (i.e., political party) declines”.
Political personalization is a multifaceted phenomenon. Three main types of political personalization can
be identified: institutional, media and behavioral personalization. These can be further categorized into
sub-types: institutional personalization at the state and at the party level; personalization of mediated
(or controlled) or unmediated (or uncontrolled) media; and personalization in the behavior of politicians
and voters. Furthermore, personalization may be about focus on leaders (centralized personalization) or
about focus on individual politicians beyond party leaders (decentralized personalization. The term
personalized politics describes a static situation that may result from the culmination of the process of
personalization or describes the properties of a political system in comparison to another (for example,
“politics in the United States is more personalized than in Denmark”).
Studies of political personalization have investigated the importance of political leaders and individual
candidates for vote choice. Other studies focus on how media (controlled and uncontrolled) attention
has turned towards individual politicians rather than. Also, personalization has been studied in relation
to the distribution of power within political parties investigating to what extent power centralizes in the
hands of the party leadership or decentralizes making individual politicians act more independently of
their. Recent studies has also illuminated the institutional aspects of political personalization
Personalization of politics and personalized politics may seem to be an obvious result of the weakening
links between political parties and society and individuals and the developments in communication
techniques (especially the new, unmediated, media). Yet, empirical evidence is scarce and sometimes
contradictory. Moreover, the study of personalization is important for the study of democracy in general
because it challenge the key role of political parties and thus the main model of democracy in
parliamentary system, that of party democracy

Democracy is possible in the third world if the organs of the state work according to their prescribed job,
if the countries do not accept dictation from the west, if freedom of media is guaranteed, if rule of law
prevails, if the concept of welfare state is practiced, if human rights and will of people are given
importance and most importantly if personalization of politics and dictatorial rules are controlled.
1. Nature of Government

In presidential form, there is no concept of ‘government’ rather it is an ‘administration’ and under the
influence of ‘Separation of Powers’ theory, the judiciary and the legislature are separate institutions.

In a parliamentary system, there is a government that consists of three institutions — the executive, the
legislature and the judiciary. There is a ‘fusion’ of power in this form, rather than the separation of
powers.

2. Political Parties

The notions of ‘ruling party’ or ‘opposition’ solely lack in the presidential system; instead it has a
‘majority party’ and a ‘minority party’. Moreover, in this form, there are only two major political parties.
So, the president is free from party influence in his daily administration.

On the contrary, there is a multi-party system in the parliamentary form and the executive cannot be
completely free of party affiliation.

3. Heads of the state and government

In the presidential system, the president is both the head of state and the head of the executive branch.

In the parliamentary system, generally, two people hold these two offices.

4. Election

In presidential form of government, the president is directly elected by the people and he then selects
his own team of federal ministers from the most competent persons in their respective fields. He is
answerable to the voters rather than the legislature.

In a parliamentary system, people elect only their representatives to the national parliament. These
parliamentarians then elect their leader of the house who then forms the government. It is another
striking feature of the parliamentary form that the cabinet colleagues of the prime minister must be
members of that parliament.

5. Term of Office

In a presidential form of government, the president has a fixed tenure and elections cannot be called
unless extraordinary circumstances arise. For instance, the presidential office becomes vacant after
president’s impeachment or when he is declared unfit to perform his duties.

In parliamentary form, if the prime minister loses the support of majority in the legislature, he is forced
to resign through a no-confidence motion and new prime minister is elected.

6. Source of Powers

Constitution is considered ‘supreme’ in a presidential system and all institutions draw their powers form
it.

The parliamentary system is based on ‘parliamentary supremacy’ and no court in the country can
challenge its authority. Parliament is the source of all powers in the community and the
regions/provinces have no reserved powers.
7. Decision-making

The whole decision-making process in the presidential system is based on consent and compromise. No
law can be passed against the will of the president unless some members ‘defect’ or change their
loyalties. The party system is also weak and disorganised, and party leaders are merely titular or
decorative.

In parliamentary form, parties and their leaders are very powerful. And, in case of Pakistan, they wield
so much power that if an MP does not toe the party line, he faces the threat of being de-seated.

Why Pakistan needs Presidential System?

Now that we have understood the basic contours of presidential as well as parliamentary form of
government, let’s analyse the question: “Why Pakistan needs presidential form of government?”

In parliamentary system of democracy, as in Pakistan, the prime minister is the head of the government.
The ministers are appointed only from parliament, and if there is a weak opposition, there are few
checks and balances against corruption. The heads of organisations such as ECP, NAB, FIA, FBR, SBP, etc.,
are usually cronies appointed by the government in power so that they can turn a blind eye to the
massive corruption that goes on under their noses. Even the FIA has been made helpless to catch senior
government officials for cooperation.

This form of government in Pakistan has benefited only a few individuals as the parties have become
mere dynasties where none is allowed to challenge party head’s supremacy or aspire to become party
supremo himself. In fact, we have a political monarchy in the name of democracy. There are many other
issues in parliamentary form in the context of Pakistan. They include, but are not limited to, the caste
system, feudalism, dynastic politics, threat of no-confidence against the prime minister, horse trading
and lesser accountability.

Moreover, successive governments have been involved in conciliatory politics only because they could
not gain absolute majority in the parliament and have to form coalition governments. So, the prime
minister has to please his allies in the government to keep his rule intact. This all has been to the
detriment of the people of Pakistan who are ultimate losers in this game of politics. All indices on human
development put Pakistan at the lowest positions, poverty is — as always — on the rise, unemployment
is soaring, inflation is uncontrollable, middle class which acts as a buffer zone between the rich and the
poor classes has vanished, institutional are on the verge of collapse, and people are reeling under the
claws of injustice. Amidst all this, political leaders have resorted only to making tall claims but when it
comes to fulfilling the promises, mum’s the word.

This state of affairs requires a holistic systemic change in our governance system. It is especially needed
to get rid of the same old usurpers of the country’s politics, outmoded social and political structures and
elitist-led status quo in our country.

Contours of the Proposed System

“Presidential system has an elected parliament, the premier is the chief operating officer and the
president is the chief executive officer and it is to the chief executive that every institution reports.
There are ministries and committees and the system that guards this system is strong and stable. The
system works well.”
— Shaukat Aziz (Former Primer Minister of Pakistan)

If we aspire to have prudently-formulated stronger and better policies on various aspects of our national
life, like economy, defence, social sector or foreign affairs, we need to have stronger governments that
are better equipped to deliver on the promise of good governance. We need to introduce an adult-
franchise-based ‘presidential system’ suitably designed for and tailored to Pakistan’s needs.

A system of presidential government in Pakistan may have the following features:

1. Election

A presidential election on the basis of ‘one-man, one-vote’ should be conducted in the country with a
fixed term. Dr Atta-ur-Rehman goes a step further and suggests that the credentials of presidential
candidates and, for that purpose, of ministers, governors and other important government officials must
be first approved for suitability by a ‘Committee of Elders’ who should all be non-political and highly
respected persons to ensure integrity and competence.

2. Composition of Parliament

There should be two chambers, as we have now. We must adopt the system of ‘proportional
representation’ because it will ensure representation of political parties in national legislature
proportionate to the percentage of popular vote they receive. It will provide greater access to non-
feudal, non-elitist educated middle class people in elected assemblies.

Senators in the upper house would be directly elected rather than selected by the lower house. The
direct election of senators will mean that the unsavoury horse trading that takes place for lower house
votes will end.

3. Formation of Cabinet

The president would be entitled to have a cabinet of experts or technocrats, some of whom would need
the approval of designated, parliamentary committees to enter the cabinet. Ministers would be selected
from university professors, corporate managers, lawyers or other professionals. The president would
not be able to appoint ministers from either of the two houses.

4. Role of Legislature

The role of parliamentarians should be confined to law-making and oversight of national affairs, and
parliamentarians should not be eligible to be appointed as ministers. This will eliminate corrupt persons
who enter politics to steal public money.

5. Devolution of Power

Power should be devolved and should lie with people’s representatives at grassroots level. Elected
representatives would not be given any development funds. These funds will be channelled through
local bodies or concerned provincial or federal departments.
At first sight, these proposed changes may seem innocuous but taken together they will bring a
fundamental change to Pakistan’s politics. The direct election of the president will mean that in the
future we will have a president who is among the best of the country and who will lead the country
toward progress and development. The people will elect whomever they deem worthy of the position.
And the collective wisdom of the people will never settle for an unworthy, corrupt or incompetent
candidate.

How to Achieve the Goal?

However, achieving this goal will never be that easy. The collusion of feudal lords, businessmen and the
aristocrats will never allow this to happen. The stranglehold of a corrupt feudal system, massive
illiteracy due to this feudal stranglehold and the absence of an effective judicial system are the basic
impediments which need to be dealt with first. Here the role of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the
guardian of the constitution assumes further importance. The SC should come forward and take up the
job of appointing the members of the Election Commission. The ECP chairman and its members are
presently appointed by those people who contest elections. So there is all likelihood that they will
appoint only the loyal persons. This has happened earlier but we cannot afford it anymore. The SC
should appoint only the persons who have unquestionable integrity and do not have any political
affiliations.

Conclusion

The whole discussion can be summed up in a quote of former US President John F. Kennedy. He said:

“We choose to go to the moon … and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they
are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills,
because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one
which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

The time to bring the change is now!