months passed when he resigned. The explanation given by him was that it had become increasingly clear to him that a section of the leadership of his party the Muslim League, was determined to create difficulties for him and he considered it a point of honor that he should vacate office as well as resign the membership of the Muslim League, though, in fact, a majority in the Parliament, consisting of members of other partics, was prepared to support him. The next Prime Minister who took office was dependent on sections of the House other than the one of which he was the leader. Hardly had he remained in office for about year when the members of a party other than his own, on whose support he was a dependent, dropped him. Blame for this state of affairs was laid the door of the former President, but, we have. already indicated at the outset, it could not have been possible for anyone person to create a split, unless the party in which the split was created was itself vulnerable and did not have the real interests of the country at heart. This instability affected adversely not only the administration but also the prestige of the country in the international sphere.
24. A very small percentage of opinions (2.2 %) blame the Services for the failure of the parliamentary form of government. The allegation, however, was in quite general terms. It is quite possible that this criticism is based on the fact that the former President and his predecessor were both retired members of permanent Services, and in fact, a few of the opinions were to the effect that members of permanent Services should be debarred from standing for election to any office within five years of their retirement. If, on the other hand, it was meant that officers who should have stood firmly against the ministerial acts of mal-administration, misconduct and corruption even to the extent of threatening to resign, did not do so, that by itself hardly justifies the accusation that the Services were responsible for the acts of the ministers. Even in advanced countries, instances of such drastic action on the part of the officers can, in the nature of things, be very few, for, it is not easy for senior officers with families and commitments to change their occupation at a late stage in life. According to the statement about the nature and causes of the failure of the parliamentary form of government presented to us by the official delegation: “Government servants were victimized or favored in the personal interests, or on the recommendation, of the ministry's supporters, leading to complete demoralization of the services.” There were, of course, cases of officers playing up to the ministers order to exploit the situation to their own advantage, but it cannot be said that they contributed to the failure of the parliamentary form in particular, as corrupt officers of that type would contribute to the failure of any form of government. The Services, in general, cannot, therefore, be condemned as having contributed to the failure of the parliamentary form of government.
25. We, therefore, conclude, as we began, with the observation that the real causes of the failure of the parliamentary form of government in Pakistan were mainly the lack of leadership resulting in lack of well-organized and disciplined parties, the general lack of character in the politicians and their, undue interference in the administration.
