“(3) Lack of leadership resulting in lack of well-organized and disciplined parties, a general lack of character in the politicians and their undue interference in the administration.”
In the opinion of the Commission, the real causes of the failure were to be found in the last-mentioned group of opinions, rather than in the first two. A study of event leading to the final break-down of Constitutional Government in October. 1958. Would prove this point.
(1) Lack of proper election—It cannot be said that the Assemblies were not elected. The first Constituent Assembly was indirectly elected as it was intended mainly to frame the Constitution. It continued in office till it was dissolved in October 1954, and succeeded by a second Constituent Assembly indirectly elected from the Provincial legislatures. Since this Assembly was formed after elections had taken place in the Provinces, it had many new members, who came to office through direct elections in the Provinces on the basis of universal suffrage. But such elections held on the basis of adult franchise in the Provinces did not bring in worthier or particularly different representatives. After general elections at the national level the same pattern would undoubtedly have been repeated.
(2) Interference by the Head of the State—The view of the Constitution Commission in this instance was that although the Head of State interfered, the reason why he could do so with impunity was because of lack of discipline and solidarity in the parties in power. They have also pointed out that parliamentary government has succeeded only in countries with a Constitutional monarchy, where the Head of the State is not a member of a party or is elected but comes to office by inheritance. An elected Head of State first, belongs to some political, party, and secondly comes to office because he commands the confidence of the people. In such cases, if both the Head of State and the Prime Minister are strong personalities, friction between them is inevitable. As the Constitution Commission pointed out that in India, where the parliamentary system is in force, “the present Prime Minister has from the day of Independence been able to completely eclipse the Head of the State, who it is significant, has himself raised the question whether be has not, under the present Indian Constitution, more powers than the sovereign in England". In a parliamentary form of government, an elected Head of the State will always have considerable scope of indulging in party politics if he is so inclined and the political parties accept the interference-this is a defect inherent in the system.
(3) Lack of party discipline and lack of character in the politician-A cursory glance at events from 1953 onwards will show that it was lack of leadership and well-organized and disciplined parties in general lack of character in the politicians and the undue interference in the administration which caused the ultimate breakdown of Constitutional Government in Pakistan.
Dismissal of the Prime Minister in 1953
(a) It is a well-known convention that a Prime Minister cannot lose his office without first losing his parliamentary majority. The Prime Minister of Pakistan in April, 1953,
