Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Constitution and assemblies in pakistan

                There exists two systems of governance , the parliamentary system and presidential system i-e  America. In presidential system , president is directly elected by the people whereas in form of parliamentary system the appointed members by people elect the prime minister.The difference between both is that in parliamentary system prime minister holds the power and in presidential system president is sovereign. Moreover in presidential system the government is elected twice , the congress and president.
                In this chapter it has been explained how assemblies are formed to run the government. Legislation is a key function that assemblies perform, parliament make laws while courts implement them.These laws are made by the members of parliament which are politicians who belong to different parties and mostly they make laws for their own benefits,which is questionable.Various amendments in constitution has been made by our rulers that people were not in favour of.
                Question is that  whether our political parties are capable of making amendment in laws? The constitution of Pakistan has been made after a long effort  and the dictators played their role in complicating the constitution to a extreme level, now politicians play with the constitution by doing different amendments

2 comments:

Unknown said...

I am assuming that by saying that the" constitution was made after a long effort" you mean to say that it should be left alone. Well the constitution is not a divine document, that cannot be transformed and ammended according to the changing times, and it is only the Parliament's prerogative to do that. No court or dictator should be able to alter the constitution ! The constitution is a living law and it should evolve!

Unknown said...

I agree to your point Shehryar, in order to sustain a peaceful living of a state, the set of rules that run it need to stay updated to the changing needs of the citizens, different sociological changes, etc. which contribute in altering the way people think and how the norms change. Globalization, technological advancement, embodiment of knowledge, etc. all contribute to the increasing need for an up-to-date, ever evolving constitution. So yes, the power to amend the constitution should not lie in the hands of the prime minister, president or a similar authority but it should definitely be evolving over time.