'Personality cults are a personal gift' (Session 10)

In the readings, Heywood mentions theories of leadership out of which one school of thought suggests that leadership is a personal gift.  I happen to agree with this notion. It is extremely vital for the leader of the state to have the capability of being able to govern a large group of individuals. If he does not have that capability, the people can rise against him even if the bureaucracy is on his side. An example of this was during the French Revolution. Even though Louis iv was ruling France as an authoritarian rule, the people still stood up against him which led to the greatest, bloodiest revolution known in history as the French Revolution. Louis lacked the ability of leadership. He was not able to win over the people of his country. The only way such a rule can work is if it becomes authoritarian. Which eventually, the people rise against when they can not stand it anymore.

Heywood mentions leaders who have genuine moral authority such as Nelson Mandela and Dala Lama. This type of quality is also so necessary to have because their influence actually developed a sort of ‘cult of personality’ amongst the people. They not only respect being ruled by these people, but also look upto them in terms of moral guidance.

Modern political psychology supports this notion as ‘personality’ is something deeply explored. Research shows the importance of personality and how biologically there are a certain types of personalities that are actually made to ‘rule’ while other personalities are such that would rather be ‘ruled’. 

Like, Aristotle famously put it ‘ Men are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or be ruled.’

Leadership may include a sociological, organizational, political phenomenon but in my opinion the one most essential is when it is viewed as a ‘personal gift.’ If we look at Pakistan as an example and the leaders we have had. It is clear that the only thing they have working for them is their ‘charismatic personality’. While some people would not see Altaf Hussain’s personality as charismatic but what one needs to understand is, that his hold over MQM and essentially all of Karachi, clearly he has loyal supporters which is only possible through his personality, how he managed to gain the support of many people and how he manages to shut down the entire city of Karachi at his will. It is not the ‘policies’ or the bureaucratic form of rule that gain him this support, but the ability and charisma of personality that the people see in him.

The Intervention of Politics In Judiciary

"Judiciary is the Guardian of Law in the State. Its the back-bone of the government,  its the only branch, in any state, on which everyone can trust. The Judges who lead the judicial system are considered to be the Representatives of God on earth, providing people with justice"

Laws have been written and constitutions have been made, judges and the courts make decisions according to these laws and provide justice. Different matters are solved between people, parties and even states (internationally) on the basis of laws. The decisions of the courts are considered to be final and concluded. People have to respect and abide by them. Unfortunately the judicial system have become weak and is losing its honor.

This is beacuse of different factors which intrude and manipulate the settlements, made by the court. Judges are influenced by various elements which weaken the decision-making process. The biggest factor is Politics. The judicial system is badly affected by politics and politicians, who, in the power of their seats and authority try overcome the courts decisions and intervene in their adjudication. This has rotten up the judicial system and is making holes in it. Manipulation takes place through different ways, which start from the appointment and remain throughout the careers of judges.

In US, the judges are appointed by the President and the appointments are passed through the Senate. The whole process is toxicated with biases i.e that the president appoints judges who have an ideological disposition and affiliation with the president's political party. In the similar fashion the senate can reject them on political prejudice. After the appointment, the tenures of the judges are threatened by assemblies and other influential figures. These are considered to be the External Pressures,and their results are clearly shown in the decisions.

Along with these, comes the Internal Pressure, which means the ideology, subjective feelings and personal agenda's of the judges. Their likings and unlikings have a great influence on the decisions. These personal likings and unlikings should be minimized so that decisions could become impartial.

Courts are sacred places and justice should be given at any sake. Politics should be kept away from them so that they (courts and judges) could fulfill their duties. Judges should be independent in their decisions and should have protection, so that nothing could threaten them during their career. Only in such a way, the stereotypes made for the courts can be fulfilled.

Uruguay bids farewell to Jose Mujica, its pauper president

Wyrie Davies, Uruguay bids farewell to Jose Mujica, its pauper president, BBC News, 3-1-15
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31679475

The Executive in America-Session 10

Needless to say, today the executive exercises great power on domestic and foreign affairs in the United States. For example, not only does the President set his party’s domestic legislative agenda, he can even commit troops to conflict abroad without Congressional consent. And David Harris writes, “If the president is exercising his power in areas of foreign policy during wartime, and the Congress has ceded that power to him… then the president’s power is at its greatest point,” Clearly pointing out that ultimate power has been extended to the executive today.

Now, where some may argue that in order to ensure swift implementation of policies, power must be concentrated at the top, others may worry that too much power in one man’s hand may just be..bad.

So, should the executive, especially in the USA, be allowed ultimate authority regarding a diverse array of matters, even including National Security? Heywood gives an apt explanation that in times of crises, the answer may be yes. But is it, really?

First of, an executive elected 48% on the back of wall street money cartels, 49% by a pat on the back from the pentagon and 3% his rhetoric, does not fit the ‘referent’ leader we study of in Management. Barack Obama, a lawyer by profession, elected as U.S representative may not be the fittest or rather even ‘legitimate’ man to devise a military strategy.

Heywood quite aptly points out that the Head of State is merely restricted to a symbol of national leadership. Pakistanis may beg to differ, but more so to Heywood’s side as to us, Mr. Mamnoon is rarely even seen. But Heywood extends great authority to the Head of Government, listing numerous amounts of tasks under his domain. If we are to believe Heywood, then truly one leader becomes of utmost essence. Then so much simply relies on the executive’s ability to decide. And that is, hopefully many will agree, not a safe situation for a nation to be in. 

Of course, I believe that is not true. In theory, the executive may look snazzy throwing out orders to the bureaucracy, making the ultimate decisions in crises and saving the world, but in reality, this seems remotely practical. I believe any or little authority an executive exercises is filtered through think tanks i.e pentagon and the bureaucracy to the extent that too many have already pitched in their interests. One example is Guantanamo Bay. President Obama pledged to close the facility during his campaign and signed an executive order to that effect, but Guantánamo remains open to this day. Why might that be? Obama is legally given the authority to pass such an order, so it isn’t the legalities that constrain him— it is the intense opposition to this idea amongst different ranks, according to my opinion.

Session 11: The Trusted Judiciary

The Judiciary is a part of the government which gives meaning to law however; it is not involved in the law making process. It has been given the power to decide legal disputes. In theory, this body is not political and therefore independent of any leanings or biases whether external or internal. Then again, all this is another good set of paperwork.

Pakistan’s public has placed greater trust in the judiciary than it has in the government. This was seen during the Long March when the public decided to help restore the –then deposed- Chief Justice of Pakistan. The protests turned out to be successful as the Chief Justice was restored however; public trust was quickly disbanded when the charges against him were leaked.

Even the judiciary has not been able to protect Pakistan’s citizens. We have seen how certain parts of the country have formulated their own law making bodies because of the in effectiveness of and dis trust in the national judiciary. One such example is that of the ‘Jirga’ where male, elders decide upon the disputes of local people. Such self-help mechanism is undoubtedly a threat to the prevailing system but we need to bear in mind that it would not have existed had there been no need for them.

Session 10 : Pakistan and Power

If we have a little deep glance at the state's  political system and its power dynamics, we may find that there are numerous factors that ultimately drive a consequence which are inter-dependent and entangled.
     The problem I see in our system is that no institution can work dependently. From the mighty executive  to the very weak  peasant of a remotest village, everyone is influenced by or victimized to an invisible hierarchical power that exists everywhere.
That invisible power may have a different dimension for a different individual.
                           A weak,old and fragile peasant have to submit his consent [willingly or unwillingly] to the will of  the feudal lord or ''Zameendar'' of the village because he buys his crop, he lends him money every now and then and supports his very survival in the society.
Then this person[the zammendar] has contacts with the bureaucrats and MNAs and MPAs. This relationship is mutually beneficial in a way that bureaucrats get their palms greased and the later get their ballot boxes stuffed.
        This chain goes up in the same manner but only the groups and the dimension of power change.Whether its Judiciary dependent on political figures or vice versa.
This the the dilemma  we are facing,the crises of access and accountability.

Session 10- Political Executives

The heads of our state or government are our leaders; they are political executives who have the power to influence state laws and regulations, the constitution, basically change the way a country is run.

Heywood discusses different types of leaderships and various political executive styles. Popular leadership seems to be the norm of Pakistan, and as Heywood states popularity is very important for the stability or instability of a regime.

In Pakistan it does not matter if it's a parliamentary system or presidential system, the party with maximum seats will rule the country and its chairman will be the head of the state. Any positions given to other individuals will be mainly ceremonial. For example, Nawaz Sharif is head of the state as Prime Minister during PML-N's government, while Asif Ali Zardari was head of the state as President during PPP's government.

Different executives gain popularity among their party members or public due to their conduct. There are some transformational leaders in Pakistan who had the ability to take a visionary position and inspire people. For instance, Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who changed the way people saw Pakistan with one slogan, "Roti, Kapra, Makan", then recently we have had Mr. Imran Khan who encouraged people to stand up for their rights and mobilized them. On the other hand, we have had transactional leaders who go about their term exchanging favors between the leader and the followers of reward for applied effort. For example, there is no doubt in the fact that PML-N's regime is best suited for industrialists and businessmen as the policies become corporate friendly. 

Session 10- Presidential and Parliamentary system for Pakistan

The dynamics of executive power can be examined more closely by looking at the roles of presidents, prime ministers and cabinets. Pakistan has been though both presidential and parliamentary form of government. In presidential form of government, the President of the state has all the authority. While in parliamentary form of government, prime minister who is an elected member from the assembly by the, so called, representative of people is the main executive and president acts only as ceremonial executive.

Pakistan is currently being governed by a parliament government in which Prime Minister is an elected member of the assembly. And all the executive power resides within the prime minister. Elections in Pakistan are allegedly rigged and have always been criticized to be. This means that majority of the representatives of people i.e the members of assembly are not deserved. Consequently, the prime minister is elected by the people who are not true representatives of people but are the ones who work for their party interests. Hence the executive of the country is unlawful. Then how can we rely on the decisions he make? How can we say that he is justly a representative of the country and he will only work for the interest of the nation?

As far as presidential system is considered, recently, following the 2008 elections Asif Ali Zardari by amending the constitution made gave president more power hence making prime minister powerless. This means that vote of the majority was given no power. This gives the impression that despite the voting system, the public is being made to play simply, a game of cards.

Session 10: Power games

The system of parliamentary executives greatly affects Pakistan's internal dynamics of power. Since the political executive is chosen by the assemble, there is no separation of personnel between the legislature and executive. Nawaz Sharif is in reality the head of our government with his power being derived from PMLN's majority in the assembly and since he maintains control of patronage, the strings of the country are ultimately all in his hands.The key to Nawaz's power really lies in his position as party leader.This power has grown tremendously over recent years than it was during Zardari's time when most power lay with the president. Today the president, Mamnoon Hussein is merely a puppet figure filing a ceremonial position. But this centralization of power in the hands of one individual alongside the subordination of ministers and cabinet creates a form of absolute monarchy. The system must be criticized for it lessens the assembly's debating purposes and weakens scrutiny of legislation. Not only that, strengthened centralization will eventually weaken the power of the government departments, the cabinet and the bureaucracy. With the opposition in the assembly having vowed to silence, Nawaz has been left free to do as he wills without any checks. This system only creates an illusion of democracy then if one individual's wishes shall run the country. One is then forced to wonder, how can one individual be trusted to make decisions that shall be equivocal in benefiting all factions of a nation? How then do we have a right to call ourselves a democracy?

Session 10: Political executives and the State

Usually considering both the words with the same meaning, till the last couple of months I personally never even intervened and thought of state and government as two different words. Later I came to know that these two words have meanings that are miles apart.Where the government is a term that is used for the governing party or the people that have became a part of the assemblies via the electoral process. The term state refers to the bureaucracy that is maintaining and running the smooth operations of the country and in theory is least bothered about which government is ruling or is in power.

In Heywood’s reading regarding Political executives it was mentioned that it is the responsibility of the Government (assemblies) to make the laws according to their political and ideological priorities of their party; the duty of the state and civil servants is to bring those policies into action and make sure that they are implemented accurately without providing any sort of political favor or biases to any particular political party.

Comparing this scenario with the current condition in my country will give almost a completely different picture. As far as the power game is concerned, politicians hold the supreme authority to control and even implement things that are in their favor. A strong web of relationships is broadened from the prime minister to the clerks, each supporting and advancing the interest of his senior. Political affiliations are so strong that many of the relatives of the politicians in power are given high posts regardless of their qualifications. Things have gone so far that vacancies of civil offices are being sold out in a proper bidding process. Starting from a low amount for a lower post and going in millions for a higher post.

According to theory everything works out extremely well and there exists no mutual interdependence between state and the government but the problem is that it’s just a theory and things work differently on practical grounds. The question to be raised is that whether this so called affiliation and dichotomy of State and government will keep on existing or will there be any political executives who will draw the think line of differentiation between both of them.  

Session 10: The Over-mighty Executive of Pakistan

Pakistan being a post-colonial state inherited a strong executive part of the government, mainly, military from the British.

With the absence of a political leadership and control, military was an institution that was deliberately strengthened  by the earlier governments in order to ensure protection against the enemy state of India. Funds were spent on this institution compromising other sectors like education and welfare.

Moreover, the bureaucracy was expanded to ensure a more efficient system of governance across the state.

Both these institutions have been dominated by the Punjabis ever since the creation of Pakistan. As a representative of the executive, this military-bureaucracy oligarchy has dictated the realms of policy-making and implementing regardless of the interests of the common man.

The over mighty executive of Pakistan exploited its vast powers to ensure its interests, trampling the ideals of democracy along the way.
This was seen in 1971, when the Punjabi dominated executive refused to give up its political power to the elected party and resulted in civil war on the province of East Pakistan.

This can also be seen in the interference of the executive with the judicial branch of the state as took place under Musharraf in 2007.

The unjust power enjoyed by this specific part of the Pakistani executive stretches into the other branches of the government. This violates the fundamental division of powers on which the the democracy of Pakistan was based.

Session 10- Political executives in Parliamentary government vs. Presidential government

The executive’s role in a state, although varying due to the wide range of duties performed in different political systems, fundamentally refers to those institutions responsible for governing a political community, applying its binding decisions.

This role greatly differs in two cases, namely in parliamentary government and the presidential government. Examples of a parliamentary government include Britain and Germany, in which cases the chief executive emerges from the assembly and experiences an unfixed tenure, unlike that in Presidential governments where the chief executive is chosen by popular elections (as in the case of USA.

Another important feature concerning political executives is the chief executive’s separation from legislative institutions in presidential governments, while parliamentary forms include the appointment of other executives in the form of cabinet by the Prime Minister.

While the role of political executives in the parliamentary form may result in a stable and decisive form of government in the case of a single party, it can also be the reason for a fragmented government with the existence of a coalition. Similarly, even though it may be easier to match through imitation, it can be a possible cause of tyranny in the state.

Alongside this stands the presidential government, in which strong and decisive leadership appears as a result of the role played by political executives. There are strong checks and balances which may ensure stability, but there exists the issue of conflicts and gridlocks. Also, the separation of the executive and legislative institutions may result in issues regarding accountability.

It is due to all the reasons mentioned and the issues underlined above that it remains unclear as to which form of government states, more appropriately, the roles of the political executives of the state.

Session 10 - The North Korean cult of personality

A cult of personality is an instrument of propaganda through which a leader gains adulation and is portrayed as a heroic and sometimes even worshipful individual. When the personality cult is about a head of state, criticism of the person is usually prohibited and the masses are given  a consistent image of the leaders perfection through the manipulation of mass media. 

Such is the case in North Korea, where a cult of personality has existed for decades surrounding the Kim family. While other countries have also had cults of personality to various degrees, I believe that the extreme nature of the one in North Korea surpasses all others, and it is also unique due to the sheer intensity of its peoples devotion and feelings towards their leaders. This devotion was witnessed by the world in 2004 when several people risked their lives and some even died trying to rescue portraits of their 'Dear Leader', Kim Jong II, after an explosion in a train. 

Cults of personality are hardly ever taken seriously enough by the international community, they are often viewed as a sort of bizarre curiosity found in some authoritarian regimes. On the other hand, I believe there is more to them than just that. A cult of personality creates loyalty by producing false beliefs in the people, considering the example of North Korea where the daily news bulletin begins with a song about the 'qualities' of their leader to instill an idealistic picture of him among the people. In this way, I think the government is violating the rights of its population in a way that they are not allowed to form their personal political opinions and in case of criticism of the leadership in North Korea, there are severe punishments.

Since not much attention is paid to the issue of  personality cults, governments are actually allowed to get away with ludicrous decisions such as spending over $60 million in the construction of several statues of the leader (Kim Jong-il), causing financial issues in North Korea at a time when two-thirds of the country's population is already reportedly suffering from food shortages. Therefore, in my opinion, this issue must be given a priority for discussion in the international forum so that we can advance towards a society where people all around the world are free to shape their own political beliefs.

Session 10- Leadership as a Personal Gift.

Aristotle once said, “Men are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or be ruled.”

In this week’s reading by Heywood on Political Executives, he summarizes the various forms of political executive rules and the various styles, theories and types of leaderships.

I would like to shed more light on the theory, which mentions leadership as a personal gift. It is known to be the traditional view of leadership, but it is what sparked interest in me because I agree with this theory of leadership. This goes all the way back to the ever-popular debate about whether leaders are born or made. I feel there are some certain traits within leaders, which drives them towards power. Modern psychology even supports this theory and James Barber’s analysis, further strengthens this theory. I feel that certain personality traits such as having charisma instilled within oneself is something, which polishes with time to create a good and solid leader. Once again, this is just one theory and obviously, there is a great deal of debate going on about the other theories as well with strengths and shortcomings of all views.

What I feel is that personality trumps other factors that make a good leader. If you go down history, there are numerous examples of leaders who ruled well on the basis of their strong and charismatic personality, whether it is Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

Political Executives; Presidential or Parliamentary System

The Power of the State resides predominantly in three departments, The Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. Three of them are interlinked and are the pillars of a state. Executive is the authority which rules the country and decisions are under its will. Basically the government has its head, who leads everyone in the state and has the authority to administer others. 

The Head of the state or the head of the government is the leader and is the Political Executive, all the power resides within him. In different forms of government, the political executive has different roles, functions, working ways and posts. If its a presidential form of government, the same person plays the role of the head of state and government. In the parliamentary form, the head of govt. is the prime minister and the president is the head of state (constitutional monarch). Their functions include dealing with delegates, making decisions and running different matters smoothly.

The political executives have to make sure that their relations with other branches go well. Which include media, judiciary, federal bureaucracy and the assemblies. Even the president in the presidential form is accountable to the legislature and has to inform it about its decisions. When dealing with the media, he, the president must deal with them sincerely because media represents him and his work. A positive image of the executive should be developed in the eyes of people. Judiciary has its strong roots in the state and the executive must keep its relations with the judiciary healthy, so that the decisions made by the executive aren't countered by the judicial system. At last, bureaucracy, is the one through which the governmental decisions go through, so these relations must be strong. If the prime minister is the executive, he has to fulfill these duties and he must do acts to make sure things go right. Moreover he has to get the support and trust of the assembly and his cabinet, which links him with the people.

The Head of the state/government has to run the country and rule others. He must be a charismatic leader and an expressive personality. Its important for the Political Executive to motivate others during his mission and move them to a bright future.

Session 11: Judiciary: Denying Justice?

Judicial System of any country plays a vital role in its survival since it is responsible for the smooth functioning of the state departments. All countries have well established judicial systems and so does Pakistan. Pakistan’s judiciary stems from the system that was used in British India and The Government of India Act of 1935 was retained as the provisional constitution after independence in 1947.

Courts are believed to grant justice irrespective of class, religious beliefs, living standards, political affiliations and official status of powers. However, this is not entirely true for Pakistan.

The poor fractions are denied of justice while the rich and powerful are immune to it. Recently, the case of a girl being raped and the tape being released on the social media was brought to light. However, the case came in limelight when the tape was released. Had the system been more effective and prompt, the girl would have contacted the courts instead of choosing to remain silent.

Similarly, given the absence of scientific data collection methods and credible witness protection programs, the trails take several years before a verdict is passed. This further jeopardizes the relation of the citizens with the state whose primary function is to protect the rights of its people.

Also, on many occasions the government has failed to tackle emergency terrorist situations showcasing the states inability to counter terrorism, allowing the citizens to be prisoners in their own homeland.

Furthermore, sometimes, external interference in trails, including military intervention, prevent the cases to reach the court.

In a nutshell, the branch designed to interpret law has so far failed to achieve its goals and so is in dire need of reforms to allow for a greater degree of accountability.

Session 10- Technocracy

  Technocracy refers to a form of government where decision-makers are people who possess technological areas in their respective areas of supervision. I believe that the solution to many of Pakistan’s problems lies in a technocratic government.

By a technocratic government I do not mean that technocrats should possess supreme power, rather that they should have considerable say in policy-making and should therefore work with the politicians on equal ground. This is simply due to the fact that they have considerable knowledge in their respective areas, more often than not more than the politicians, and can therefore come up with more effective policies which take into account several different variables, rather than focusing on just one.

A lot of arguments are put forward that technocrats are not democratically elected and that technocrats only serve to benefit those who hire them. If we analyze Pakistan’s situation, majority people will agree that even in the current scenario there is no democracy in Pakistan. Furthermore, our politicians, as shown by substantial evidence, implement politics that only benefit them and the ruling elite therefore even now the elites interests are what drive our policies direction.

We have experienced how politicians have systemically robbed our country; I think it is time that we limit the power of these greedy politicians and let educated people with unselfish motives direct our country to the path of progress and prosperity.

Session 10: The tales of Leadership

“A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” –Martin Luther King, Jr. 

In my personal view, Tariq Pervaiz, the Chief Minister of KP’s interim government 2013, was an inspirational leader who went by the book and brought the political bodies under one umbrella. During his term, the entertainment budget of CM house was reduced from Rs 4.5 million to 0.5 million and the money was allocated for other altruistic projects. His headship, though short lived, was a perfect example of Laissez-Faire leadership that encompassed and valued the advice of his subordinates, fostering harmony with smooth functioning of the government.

Moreover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the US president, won the 1940 elections by promising the nation that US would refrain from any involvement in the World War 2 if he were re-elected. Though, later, America became actively involved in the war but initially the President was able to play rivals against each other and proposed with agenda that was popular amongst the masses, featuring Transactional Leadership qualities.

Furthermore, Transformational Leadership qualities can be seen in Imran Khan who has emerged as a visionary figure, mobilizing support of the nation through his charismatic character and ability to inspire people.

One cannot say with certainty as to which one is the most effective style of leadership. However, in my view, the one that can gather the nation under one flag and persuade it to comply with the leaders' policies is the best one. 

Session 10: The Executive Game

The executive branch of the government is responsible for execution and implementation of laws. This branch is the dominant one among the three in which the power of a government is divided namely executives, legislature and judiciary. On the other hand the bureaucracy is responsible for administering the working of a state. It aids the executives in implementing laws.

In Pakistan, executive powers not clearly laid out. For instance, it is a norm for the constitution to be changed (a relatively rigid framework) where either the president or the prime minister is awarded more power than the other, leaving the other person as a mere figurehead. Such a scenario has left uncertainty in the distribution of power. The voting procedure is such that the leader of the party with most votes takes the seat as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the head of state. However, the President is chosen by the Electoral College for a period of five years, it is a ceremonial positon.

Recently, following the 2008 elections Asif Ali Zardari, the president made himself more powerful under the constitution, leaving the Prime Minister powerless. Such actions lead to loss of faith in the political system, especially the executive body. This gives the impression that despite the voting system, the public is being made to play simply, a game of cards.

Session 9- The need to replace Assemblies in third world countries

Great thinkers such as Locke and Montesquieu urged that assemblies are the principal vehicles for delivering a responsible and representative government. However, the time and the context for the need of assemblies has changed especially in third world countries who can not afford to fall further behind.
Although the role of the assemblies have changed from less policy making to more communication functions, I strongly feel that the assembly , whether purely representive or unrepresentative is a cost third world countries can not afford to bear any longer.
Many members of the Assembly in Pakistan have continuously failed to not only protect the rights of the people but are bribed officials who claim to be electables.
However, my complaint with regards to Assembly is not their corrupt practices but their inefficiency and lack of skill which leads to third world countries not being able to catch up.
The ministers should be specialised with regards to their field of duty e.g. the finance minister should be the one with the most knowledge regarding how to fix the country's financial matters and not one who has minimal knowledge in the field. Pakistan is widely known for nominating ministers  who do not even have a college degree.
Although amendments have been passed to fix this, experts must take over to cleanse Pakistan of all of its inefficiences and useless costs. One of them being a skill less Assembly.
Indeed, this is easier in theory as deciding who is the most skilled will be a complex issue , however , that risk is far more easier to take than one in which a function-less Assembly is elected.

Political Socialisation and Religion

Heywood emphasizes that political attitudes do not drop from the sky and are instead acquired through learning and social experiences . In the long run, agents of political socialisation play a great role in legitimising the power of a regime.
One of the key tools used by rulers is religion as a political socialising agent. A prime example of overtaking and overturning the system in the name of purifying the country is the period of Islamization in Zia ul Haq's time.
Zia Ul Haq claimed Pakistan to be impure and thereby in need of radical reforms. He gained support of the Fundamentalists and the masses through brining in ordinances such as the Hadood and by showing his rule to be in line with Quranic teachings. An example of this is his law on imprisoning someone who was caught eating in public during the Holy month of Ramadan. Furthermore, segregation within universities, the Hudood Ordinance and the revival of Jihad are all factions of how a political leader acquired legitimacy through the use of religion.
Perhaps the most dangerous part of this was the Majlis-e-Shoora, a nominated Assembly that was in the favour of Rishwat/bribery being legalised as commission.
Although this use of religion is dominantly seen by the Taliban, it is also in fact  used by most politicians today to put a veil on their unfair practices.
Therefore religion in an Islamic state can cause quite the damage it states to obliterate.

Session 10 - Power

If power is distributed evenly among the assembly and the executive and a system that ensures this divide remains is established, the executive would govern the policy-making process rather than actively engage in it and consequently be unable to encroach on the responsibilities of the assembly. This, I believe, should be done for the following reasons. 

Firstly, in a democracy, public consent is necessary to not only implement policies but also to make them in the first place. This means that decisions are made based on popular opinion. The job of the assembly entails gathering views of the public regarding various aspects that affect them and then incorporate those into the decision making process. For this reason, the assembly is commonly known as a representative of public needs and desires and the link between the government and the population. Executive decisions are however based on the interests its members believe the population has - which may or may not be the same as its actual interests - and in some cases on the members’ own interests.

Secondly, one person cannot acquire the experience and expertise required to rule a country while ensuring the needs of its people are met and public welfare is high. The combined expertise of a number of people can come close to the ruling level however, which is why decision-making bodies should be composed of a significant number of people who possess the knowledge required to rule a country. The division of power seen in some countries has resulted in most of it lying with a small number of executive politicians who make decisions for the whole country which, again, may or may not serve the population’s interests.

In conclusion, the asymmetrical distribution of power among the executive and legislative branches in most cases adversely affects public welfare for which reason a clear divide should be established among their areas of authority and the roles they have to play.