বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ দ্বিতীয় খন্ড CHAPTER III FORM OF GOVERNMENT - PARLIAMENTARY OR PRESIDENTIAL Analysis of Opinions expressed 34. As for the form of government with which we are concerned in this chapter, only 21.3% of the opinions favor the pure parliamentary pattern while 29.3% want to have that form modified materially. 47.40% favor the presidential type of government and of the remaining 2 % who suggested dictatorship on the lines of the Khilafat. most of the witnesses added that, if that were not practicable, they would prefer the presidential system. It is remarkable that even those who advocated the pure parliamentary form in their statements before us admitted that, for the successful working of that system, well organized and highly disciplined parties were necessary and that for such parties to emerge in Pakistan it would take time. They also admitted that stability of government could be secured only with such parties; but they were hopeful that if elections were held regularly, the right type of representatives would be returned. According to some of these opinions we are so used to the parliamentary system, and such strangers to the presidential, that the safer course is to revert to the parliamentary type. In some of the statements made before us, fear was expressed that the presidential form would create deadlock, if it did not deteriorate into dictatorship as in the Latin American Slates. Some of the opinions in favor of the parliamentary form seem to us to have been influenced by an impression that India has been able to work that system satisfactorily, and that, therefore, there is no reason to doubt its success here. 35. Those who wished to modify the parliamentary form, while sharing with the pure parliamentarians their apprehension about the presidential type admitted that the right type of parties were not in existence prior to the Revolution and their emergence would take time, but they hoped that the system would work successfully if the changes they proposed were adopted. Their main proposals, which are indicated below, are however, ineffective, as shall be seen when they are discussed in detail. They are restrictions and control to be imposed on the number of parties and freedom of party affiliation incorporating the conventions into the constitution, statutorily prohibiting interference by the ministers with the administration, enactment of stringent laws against the misbehavior of the ministers and, finally, the President taking over the administration in emergencies and a few months prior to elections. 36. Those in favor of the presidential form appeared to be convinced that the parliamentary form, which had once failed, could not succeed unless disciplined parties emerged, which, according to them, would take a long time. Some of them recommended the presidential system only for a decade and suggested that provision should be made in the constitution for a revision thereof every ten years, while others were of the view that the parliamentary form did not suit our genius as the history of the Islamic countries shows that there was always only one person at the head of affairs. In this connection it was stated that the system of having a head of the state as well as a Prime Minister was bound to end in a clash of personalities, In addition to these views, a few opinions were also expressed, mostly in the statements made before us, suggesting blending of the two systems of government but these suggestions can be conveniently considered while dealing with the system of checks and balances.
