Alternative system: Ex-CJP seeks presidential form of government

Invites views of senior lawyers, civil society, ex-civil servants


Hasnaat Malik November 27, 2015
Former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. PHOTO: PID/FILE

ISLAMABAD: Former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has proposed replacing the parliamentary system of governance in the country with the presidential form.

Chaudhry, who is set to launch his political party on December 25, has written letters to senior lawyers, members of civil society and former civil servants seeking their views on his proposal.

“We should think how much longer we would slave for the so-called elite in the name of the parliamentary system,” reads the three-page letter.

The former CJP said the fundamental question was about the search for an alternative democratic system.

The letter reads: “In view of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s vision, we should introduce a presidential system of governance in which people’s representatives are restricted to formulating legislation, and other powers are transferred to the local level.”

Lawyer Sheikh Ahsan said that around a thousand letters have been sent to people belonging to different segments of society to get their opinion on Chaudhry’s proposal, adding that the present system had failed to bring a change in the lives of the people, especially those belonging to the lower class.

However, a large number of lawyers who had supported the former CJP during the movement for restoration of the higher judiciary said Chaudhry’s proposal had surprised them because historically, dictators have favoured the presidential form of governance.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 27th, 2015.

COMMENTS (1)

sarfraz | 8 years ago | Reply a court giving date in office in petition for fundamental rights is not a court but an agency to the govt ,let me say it is a stigma on the face of justice
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ