Presidential or Parliamentary System: Which is Better for Pakistan?

By Arslan Shahzad

There are similarities and dissimilarities between a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy. One similarity is that in both forms of government, the people elect their representatives. This gives the people significant power since they are able to decide who will represent them.

Likewise, there are differences between the two forms of democracy. The United States has a presidential democracy, while the United Kingdom has a parliamentary democracy. In a presidential democracy, separation of powers is important. There are detailed jobs that each branch of government has. This means that executive power doesn’t have overlapping responsibilities in the legislative branch. However there is a system of Check and Balance among the state pillars. Also, the President is elected separately from the members of the legislative branch.

In a parliamentary democracy, there is no election for the chief executive. The majority party in the legislative branch will choose that person. This makes it easier to pass laws because there is no threat of a presidential veto in a parliamentary democracy. Because presidential democracies generally have a system of checks and balances, this may limit what each branch of government can do. Generally, we can see that the former European Colonies have the parliamentary system of democracy.

After the analysis given by Dr. Shahid Masood yesterday, the social media have sprung into a new debate, whether Pakistan should be a Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy. I personally think that the Parliamentary System is the system most suited to our regional environment. History has proved that Presidential system has given Pakistan the worst setbacks. Field Marshall Ayub Khan’s Presidential Era sowed the seeds for the East Pakistan Debacle. Likewise, General Zia Ul Haq’s era gave rise to numerous problems (like Taliban, Ethnocentrism, Drug and Kalashnikov Culture) that we still face today.

Image result for ayub khan and zia ul haq — (From Left) Field Marshall Ayub Khan and General Zia Ul Haq

There are open and sometimes violent debate among many circles that the Pakistani PM Imran Khan is not able to deliver the desired results due to the fact that he get to pick and choose only the members of the Parliament as his Ministers. This is has been a serious issue with the supporters of his political party, The Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) as they despise most of his cabinet due to their pervious political affiliations. However, I think that such system can easily be amended instead of tearing down a system that is seeing its third consecutive democratic setup, a miracle this country has not seen in its 71 years old history.

The writer is Masters in International Relations from the National Defense University, Islamabad.

The Concept of Power in the Modern World

By Arslan Shahzad

Power in the modern world is explainable in many different ways. Modern discussions generally speak in terms of state power, indicating both economic and military power. Those states that have substantial amounts of power within the international structure are referred to as small powers, middle powers, regional powers, great powers, superpowers, or hegemons; although there is no commonly accepted standard for what defines a powerful state. NATO, the G7, the BRICS nations and the G20 are seen by academics as forms of governments that exercise varying degrees of influence within the international system.

Other than states, there can also be relevant actors in power acquisition in international scenario. They include international organizations, military alliance organizations like PESCOM and Islamic Military Alliance, Multinational Corporations like Unilever, non-governmental organizations such as the United Nations, or other institutions such as the Church of Scientology and technology companies like Facebook and Google.

In the modern backdrop, a number of positions are used to describe numerous types of power. In 1944, William T. R. Fox defined superpower as “great power plus great mobility of power” and identified three states, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States. With the decolonization of the British Empire following World War II, and then the disbanding of the Soviet Union in 1991 (for which the history holds Pakistan as the main factor), the United States is currently the only country left to be considered as a superpower.

In historical mentions, the term great power refers to the states that have strong political, cultural and economic influence over nations around them and across the world. In these modern times, United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan are considered as Great Power due to their global influence in world affairs.

A subjective description of influential second-tier states are the states that could not be described as great or small powers. A middle power has sufficient strength and authority to stand on its own without the need of help from others (particularly in the matters of its security) and takes diplomatic leads in regional and global affairs. Clearly not all middle powers are of equal status; some are members of forums such as the G20 and play important roles in the United Nations and other international organizations such as the WTO. Pakistan and India can be considered as middle powers due to their sizeable military forces, nuclear arsenal, and regional influence. Middle powers are usually active in regional affairs like the fact that the Afghan solution cannot be reached without the participation of Pakistan in the mix. The International System is for the most part made up by small powers. They are instruments of the other powers and may at times be dominated; but they cannot be ignored, like Sri Lanka and Nepal.

Other categories include the division of power on the basis of area of influence rather than international affairs. Regional power is the term is used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a region. Being a regional power is not mutually exclusive with any of the other categories of power. The majority of them exert a strategic degree of influence as minor or secondary regional powers. A primary regional power like Australia has often an important role in international affairs outside of its region too.

Cultural superpower refers to a country whose culture, arts or entertainment have worldwide appeal, significant international popularity or large influence on much of the world. Countries such as China, India, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States have often been described as cultural superpowers, although it is sometimes debated on which one meets such criteria. Unlike traditional forms of national power, the term cultural superpower is in reference to a nation’s Soft power capabilities.

The Chinatowns in different regions of United States and Europe act as promoters of Chinese culture in the world.

Energy superpower describes a country that supplies large amounts of energy resources (crude oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) to a significant number of other states, and therefore has the potential to influence world markets to gain a political or economic advantage. Saudi Arabia and Russia are generally acknowledged as the world’s current energy superpowers, given their abilities to globally influence or even directly control prices to certain countries. Australia and Canada are potential energy superpowers due to their large natural resources.

In short, Power is a fluid concept as the modern times goes. However, we can see that the reins of power are slowly moving away from the state. The governments do not seem to be the sole influence anymore. The individuals are gaining grounds in the power arena. Let us see what the future uncovers in terms of Power.

The writer is Masters in International Relations from the National Defense University, Islamabad.

U.S. provides military assistance to defend Ukraine from Russia?

By Arslan Shahzad

After the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, Officials in Washington have floated the idea of sending lethal aid to Kiev for the fight against Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. The US Congress has already passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which allocates $350 million for the administration to provide military aid to Ukraine. But the question arises that what US have to gain or lose by a battle fought on the European Soil.

Some people take the view that this is the rise of the Neo Tsarist Russia. The Russian s will try to revive the old days by the step by step annexation of whole of the Eastern Europe like in the days of Catherine the Great. At least Steven Pilfer and Strobe Talbott in their CNN poll agree on that. They believe that the world will not forgive the great power if another war begins on the much ravaged Europe. Such a point of view can also project that US want to keep Russian aggression in check.

Petr Kopka echoes the same concerns. Ukraine has become a kind of a catalyst for the next radical transformation of the world. Thanks to the events in Ukraine, the world, for the first time since 1991, has been forced to think seriously about its future. The example of Ukraine, for the first time since the disappearance of the bipolar world, has clearly revealed the misconception about the impossibility of the emergence of new dividing lines within the seemingly homogeneous European world.

The Rise of the Trump administration has seen a clear with respect to this issue. The US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis have given a clear cut statement on providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian government. While emphasizing Trump had yet to take a decision on the issue, Mattis signaled his personal support for a longstanding Ukrainian request for defensive weapons, which could include anti-tank Javelin missiles and anti-aircraft systems. Mattis also played down fears, voiced by the previous White House administration under Barack Obama, that supplying weapons could escalate the situation.

Kirk Bennett seems to agree to the current stance of the US administration to give Ukraine enough to defend themselves. His is the context for Western policymaking on Ukraine. The provision of anti-air and anti-armor capabilities to Ukraine is not about altering the balance of forces in the Donbas. Rather, it is a sober, considered response to the longer-term threat of a wider war in Ukraine. The clear strategy is to raise the cost of an expanded Russian military campaign against its neighbor. Arming Kyiv would complement other prudent measures to affect the Kremlin’s cost-benefit analysis—for example, allowing Russia no alternative but to continue transiting gas exports through Ukraine; Ukrainian preparations to wage guerrilla warfare in the event of invasion and occupation; practical measures to ensure that Western Europe could drastically curtail imports of Russian gas, if necessary; and laying the groundwork for much more damaging sanctions, as required, that would freeze assets and further curtail Russia’s ability to borrow overseas.

In my opinion, the evil should be nibbed in the bud. The possibility of war has always been eminent. But we can make sure this war remain limited to the Ukrainian front. The possibility of a long term Russian assault on the European soil is very much a possibility. The states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania can also be annexation on the basis use by the Russian s to annexation the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. We can simply stop this travesty from happening as the intensity of this war can have a domino effect on whole of the world. It can lead to the use of weapons of mass destruction. It will just as Einstein said,” I do not know what the third World War will be fought by, but the Fourth World War will certai9nly be fought by Spears, Sticks and Stones”.

The writer is Masters in International Relations from National Defense University, Islamabad.