Democracy is the rule of people, by the people and for the people. It is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal weight in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally, either directly or through elected representatives, in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. Democracy has proved to be the best system yet the world has experienced. Like many other developed countries of the world, Afghanistan has opted for democracy, is an indisputable choice, keeping its pre-requisites and more practicable form of democracy to exercise, is fulfilled.
Afghan government faces multiple issues, needed to be duly addressed. Firstly, Taliban’s growing insurgency, claiming lives of thousand of innocents, lies on top priority to be combated. Secondly, the reclining level of literacy depicts the worst state of affairs, putting the country at the bottom of international ranking, based on literacy rates and provisions of educational standards. Thirdly, the ever increasing poverty, paired with financial mismanagements, escalating corruption and bribery that has plagued the public offices, needs immediate eradication.
Fourthly, lack of political vision entailing political crisis, endangers national interests, demands imperative concentration. These huge sum of issues require political vision, will and maturity, seeking proper political solution on broader consensus built, between government and opposition. The quality of leadership and the system of government is detrimental and decisive for proper redressal of all these issues. It is consequently, necessary to understand the insight of parliamentary and presidential system and go for the best one, with size of preliminary issues given due consideration.
The office of President characterizes the presidential system. The President is both the chief executive and the head of state. The President is unique in that he or she is elected independently of the legislature. The powers invested in the President are usually balanced against those vested in the legislature. In presidential system, the legislature must debate and pass various bills. The President has the power to veto the bill, preventing its adoption. However, the legislature may override the President's veto if they can muster enough votes. Without development of agreement, approval of bills get delayed to an in-proportionate period; causing suspension of issues and problems. However, parliamentary systems will call for cloture or an end to debate so voting can begin, leading to approval of bill.
In parliamentary governments the head of state and the chief executive are two separate offices. Many times the head of state functions in a primarily ceremonial role, while the chief executive is the head of the nation's legislature.
The most striking difference between presidential and parliamentary systems is in the election of the chief executive. In parliamentary systems, the chief executive is not chosen by the people but by the legislatures. Typically the majority party in the parliament chooses the chief executive, known as the Prime Minister.
However, in some parliaments there are so many parties represented that none hold a majority. Parliament members must decide among themselves whom to elect as Prime Minister. The fusion of the legislative and executive branches in the parliamentary system tends to lead to more discipline among political party members. Party members in parliaments almost always vote strictly along party lines. Presidential systems, on the contrary, are less disciplined and legislators are free to vote their conscious with fewer repercussions from their party.
In both presidential and parliamentary systems, the chief of executive can be removed from the office by legislature. Parliamentary system use “vote of no confidence” where, majority party votes to remove the Prim minister from office. A new, intra-legislative’ election is then called. In presidential systems, a similar process is used where legislatures vote to impeach the presidential office.
Presidents hold office for a fixed term, reducing flexibility. And the fusion of the offices of head of state and head of the government may reduce restraints on political leaders arising from checks and balances. Presidential system is regarded as less capable of generating the representativeness and legitimacy required for the survival of democratic governance. Parliamentary democracies are more likely to allow the largest party to implement their program, even in multiparty systems.
In parliamentary system the unpopular or scandal-ridden prime ministers can be replaced by other senior party leaders without destabilizing the whole regime. Dual executives (where the head of government is separate from the head of state) are also less susceptible to military coups. And parliamentary democracy encourages long-term party-government careers, as back-benchers progress to ministerial office, strengthening party loyalties and the legislative experience of political leaders. A nation's type of government refers to how that state's executive, legislative, and judicial organs are organized.
Reflecting upon developments in Afghanistan presidential system presents substantial risks of political instability and even regime collapse as the former is found more centralized with lesser degree of flexibility than the later. The widening rift b/w government and opposition reflects, presidential system being more centralized and authoritarian, with government’s manifestation of greater partiality on several issues and greater inclination towards Taliban, to be back to main stream politics of Afghanistan, without opposition taken into confidence for the sake of greater national interest.
The reluctance of political leadership to conciliation might cost, a heavy loss to country, in the time to come. It is prime time, the fragility of stiffened political situation leading to anarchy and dwindling national integrity be reversed by keeping personal interest inferior to nation’s greater interest.
Afghanistan represents a miserable and war torn history, associated with national dis-integrity, ethnic monopoly, political instability, extended history of monarchism, centralization of power, long lasting poverty and illiteracy, elongated denial of fundamental rights of citizens and political victimization of opponents.
The national display of political maturity continued political process, unrelenting political culture, escalated literacy and broader consensus between ruling elite and opposition, on genuine issues exercised in the domain of parliamentary democratic set up ensure the prolonged survival of democracy. It is the only way Democracy, which allows citizens in government forming process, might solace the deepened wounds engraved by long lasting kingdoms, provided that leadership identifies the genuine issues and core problems; adopting parliamentary system, which is more reliable, capacious and trustworthy paired with sized of problems.