2

No Pakistani prime minister has ever served a full term in government.

What are the exact flaws in Pakistan's parliament that prevent their prime ministers from staying in power for an entire term?

1
  • 2
    Wikipedia indicates quite a few prime ministers that served more than 3 years. Maybe not technically the entire tenure, but I would say that's pretty good from a stability perspective. Just take a look at the Romanian government stability.
    – Alexei
    Apr 9, 2022 at 12:07

2 Answers 2

1

A big part of it is the military having so much say in civilian politics. In every election the candidate openly endorsed by the military always has an advantage. The military literally enacts a coup d'etat everytime they don't like a leader.

6
  • 2
    This explains why a certain president may or may not be elected, but I still don't understand why one wouldn't be able to serve their full term. As far as I'm aware, there was no coup this time. Apr 10, 2022 at 21:14
  • 1
    @Gallifreyan the opposition wouldn't have introduced a motion of no confidence against a military backed Prime Minister. Once the military unendorsed Imran Khan because of disagreements on appointment of Sr. officers and the economic crisis, the opposition filed their motion of NoConfidence. Had the parliament declared no confidence on a Military backed leader, the military simply wouldn't have allowed it to happen. This has been the case throughout their history
    – Ash Rivers
    Apr 11, 2022 at 15:00
  • 1
    The questioner is from India and your answer seems to be endorsing his preexisting views. That is why he accepted the answer as quickly as possible. Do you have a citation that supports your argument? How do you prove that Imran Khan had problems with the military?
    – user366312
    Apr 13, 2022 at 11:52
  • 2
    Can you elaborate on how exactly the military influences the civilian politics? Do they do it through influencing public opinion? Do they do it through threats of violence? Are the soldiers themselves an important voting block who vote the way their generals say and tip elections? Something else? Please back it up with a trustworthy source.
    – Philipp
    Apr 13, 2022 at 12:03
  • 1
    Ait I will populate it with sources, although recent podcast Episodes of the economist like The Intelligence indicate a similar picture
    – Ash Rivers
    Apr 17, 2022 at 8:12
1

Many democracies have a vote of no confidence, but not all. For instance, the US only allows an impeachment for cause, not simply for a lack of confidence. This is one of the differences between presidential and parliamentary systems.

Some systems have only constructive votes of no confidence, requiring the opposition to unite behind an alternative, not just in their dislike of the incumbent. Such a rule would reduce the number of no confidence votes.

4
  • 2
    This is all true - but I'm not clear how it answers the question. Apr 10, 2022 at 16:22
  • @SteveMelnikoff, a "destructive" vote of no confidence is inherently less stable than a constructive one. One might call it a flaw, which was what the OP had asked for.
    – o.m.
    Apr 10, 2022 at 17:32
  • 3
    Except that (a) a number of countries have "destructive" votes of no confidence - e.g. the UK - yet manage to have far more stable governments than Pakistan; and (b) Imran Khan is apparently the first Pakistani PM to lose such a vote. Apr 10, 2022 at 21:12
  • 1
    @SteveMelnikoff, that is a point, but politics doesn't exactly allow experiments with control groups.
    – o.m.
    Apr 11, 2022 at 4:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .