Presidential system in Pakistan: Some economic implications
https://arab.news/zvn37
Every now and then when elected governments have crossed their mid-term, electronic and print media come alive with debates on whether a presidential form of government will be better than a parliamentary system. This debate has resurfaced in the past few days. A brief analysis of media content reveals that almost all dimensions of presidential system have been discussed except economic implications. What are the economic costs and benefits of such a system?
Kemal Kirişci and Ilke Toygür in their paper “Turkey’s new presidential system and a changing west” argue that once the office of the President has centralized several forms of authority, previously with other institutions, it could create new opportunities for transactional relationships with the West (which otherwise could have been an impossibility given the diversity of strong views). This centralization provides the ability to take quick decisions which otherwise may have taken ages.
For many in power, such an ability to act fast may be a dream come true (as their time in office is limited). These may well be good for the country but if unfortunately personal ambitions take over, this could do more good for the incumbent and strengthen their own control over power and resources.
But is the fast tracking of economic and foreign policy decision making the only charm in the presidential system? Pakistan for example, has seen delayed action in all spheres of policy making and implementation. While the 18th Amendment gets the blame, we often forget that there were both presidential and parliamentary forms of government in Pakistan even before this amendment. Most who were at the helm of affairs during the presidential form in Pakistan had unabated power. Why then were they not able to put the country on a path of long run economic growth, job creation, and welfare?
The answer lies in the often cited consensus that neither Presidential nor Parliamentary forms were focused on widespread institutional reform that could have strengthened the rule of law, public service delivery, checks on elite capture of resources, incentives for innovation by small and medium enterprises, and allow economic opportunities for the bottom of the pyramid. The reverse is also true, i.e., with weak institutions, neither form of the government will deliver for the poorest of the poor.
Past efforts to impose a state of nationwide emergency and then bring out an engineered presidential system have already exhibited their fruits. These regimes didn’t survive.
Dr. Vaqar Ahmed
In 2018, Richard McManus and F. Gulcin Ozkan in their paper “Who does better for the economy? Presidents versus parliamentary democracies” used a dataset of 119 countries and argued that presidential regimes constantly are associated with less favorable outcomes than parliamentary regimes. Such outcomes include slower economic growth, higher and volatile inflation and rising inequalities. In fact, the distributional outcomes are startling and income inequality is 12 to 24% worse under presidential regimes.
In their explanation on why presidential regimes produce worse economic outcomes than parliamentary systems, they suggest that it is important to first understand the institutional context in which the two systems of government operate. Political, legal and economic institutions play an important role for economic outcomes through often conflicting policy interests which impose constraints on economic behaviour. This also implies that constitutional rules shape economic outcomes. If this is true then this begs the question of whether it is easy to change the constitutional setting and make it more equitable under a presidential or parliamentary regime?
In Pakistan’s case too, one could argue that there were periods of high short term growth spurts during the presidential regimes, but these periods could not mitigate widespread inequalities, in turn resulting in an unstable and fragile democracy.
Recent literature also indicates that the parliamentary system could produce superior quality of development (not just economic outcomes) as the separation of power due to checks and balances ensures that social justice is held supreme. While it may be frustrating to observe exhausting verbal quarrels in the parliament, these checks and balances over the longer term ensure the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. Besides history has shown that under presidentialism it is relatively difficult to remove a president from office even if the evidence of inefficiency of leadership are well known. The incumbent has to be endured until the time free and fair elections are allowed to happen.
Pakistani citizens should not have to once again endure this debate on which form of government will work better. The country has tried all that was there in the text book. Past efforts to impose a state of nationwide emergency and then bring out an engineered presidential system have already exhibited their fruits. These regimes didn’t survive as they put aside the constitution and work their way with the help of a divided judiciary aiding to give legitimacy.
The aim now should be to consolidate the successes achieved in the form of a still nascent but very loud parliamentary system, and young and much larger number of voters willing to take to the streets and vote for the best as seen in 2013 and 2018.
– Dr. Vaqar Ahmed is joint executive director at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI). He has served as an adviser to the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and has undertaken assignments with the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and the Finance, Planning, and Commerce Ministries in Pakistan.
Twitter: @vaqarahmed
