What is the right system of government for the Pakistani society?

[Savak]

I have never been a fan of the West minister Parliamentary form of Govt in Pakistan and certainly not of the 1973 constitution which gives the Prime Minister total power and makes the President a total puppet.

Wouldn't the US constitution with the checks and balances in place on the President be more better suited to the Pakistani society? When the national elections are taking place, won't it be better for the people of Pakistan to just vote for that one individual in office rather than an entire political party in parliament?

Also i believe the Pakistani nation needs a lot more provinces to make administration more efficient in the long run.

But my biggest beef is the voting population, the fact that the same corrupt political parties i.e. PML-N, PPP keep coming back into power inspite of poor performance and record corruption is just unacceptable. It is pretty clear that the vast majority of the poor rural population have just no idea on how to vote, what their rights are and on what issues, basis should they be voting on election day, they just do not understand the power and importance of their vote. These people cannot be allowed to dictate the fate of the nation for 5-6 years or even 10-15-20 years straight. Every country has its own unique challenges, circumstances and as racist, classist as it sounds but i believe only people with solid education, literacy rates in Pakistan should be allowed to vote so that they can make more informed decisions with their votes and the other uneducated, illiterate rural voters should not be given this right unless the levels of education in the Pakistani society improve dramatically.

Right now, the way the 1973 constitution is with no checks and balances on the prime minister, no 58-2(b), with parliamentary politicians not daring to vote against their party, how on earth can the military be prevented from staging a coup again? When these politicians screw up, impoverish the nation with their record scale corruption, unprecedented misgovernance, nepotism with no regard to the state of Pakistan and when every tom, dick, harry, common man begs the COAS to intervene and take action, why blame the army for coming to power in these circumstances?

 

[Slog]

we need a presidential system.

That much is for sure in my opinion

And more provinces with increased provincial autonomy

 

[Madplayer]

A progressive and secular dictator is what Pakistan needs. Someone like Musharraf. Or even a Presidential form of government but i dont trust the Pakistani citizen when it comes to voting for the right one so i am more inclined towards a Musharraf like figure.

A complete democracy cannot be successful in Pakistan till the masses are actually taught in schools what a democracy is and how it works and what their attitudes towards it should be. They have to be made ready for it mentally.

Right now what happens is that Pakistanis dont vote for a good government, they vote for a party or a family. Once they pledge loyalty to these parties and families , they become blind and support them no matter what.

The clear reason for it is lack of understanding of a democracy and lack of mental preparedness to actually look beyond hollow loyalty.

There are groups and factions who on one hand would say democracy is UnIslamic and whenever it suits them, they use the ideals of democracy like "rights and judicial processes". Then there are landlords and Clerics and all sorts of people who weild too much power for democratic institutions to handle and control.

To handle such groups a powerful person is needed with a degree of centralization of power.

Yes it is an archaic system, but it has to evolve into a democratic one slowly and that can only happen when the people are made aware and ready for it.

 

[Madplayer]

we need a presidential system.

That much is for sure in my opinion

And more provinces with increased provincial autonomy

Increased provincial autonomy will be a blunder in Pakistani set up. It is asking for trouble. Rather than doing that, cohesiveness should be enhanced by encouraging politicians from all corners of the country to take decisions for the entire country together. Yes some leeway should be given to provinces by mutual consent of all decision makers (not just the politicians of one province alone) but not always. Progressive Change should be brought about slowly.

 

[DeadBall]

The Dunda system.

 

[Deewana Mastana]

No system is the right system for Pakistan as it always has been and will continue in the same way.

 

[Markhor]

A progressive and secular dictator is what Pakistan needs. Someone like Musharraf. Or even a Presidential form of government but i dont trust the Pakistani citizen when it comes to voting for the right one so i am more inclined towards a Musharraf like figure.

How did the Musharraf era end ? Terrorism striking major cities; an economic meltdown; endemic corruption; subordinating the Constitution and judiciary to his rule; a state of emergency; and the NRO that pardoned looters and thieves in a brazen bid to cling onto power despite launching a coup on the basis of "accountability".

The Ayub era ended in the same way and his overcentralisation of power contributed to the eventual breakup of the country. Pakistanis need to stop with this fantasy of an Ataturk-style messiah when dictatorships only empower individuals and fail to build strong institutions which are essential for democracy.

A complete democracy cannot be successful in Pakistan till the masses are actually taught in schools what a democracy is and how it works and what their attitudes towards it should be. They have to be made ready for it mentally.

Right now what happens is that Pakistanis dont vote for a good government, they vote for a party or a family. Once they pledge loyalty to these parties and families , they become blind and support them no matter what.

The clear reason for it is lack of understanding of a democracy and lack of mental preparedness to actually look beyond hollow loyalty.

You cannot grow a flower when you keep chopping down the stem. Democratic systems take decades to mature and for the self-cleansing process to occur.

Its true many vote on basis of blind partisan loyalty (not unique to Pakistan - see Republicans in the South of the US) or biraderi. However, Pakistanis did punish PPP at the 2013 elections for poor performance. KPK regularly turfs out underperforming provincial governments. In 1997 the PPP were decimated and in 1999 the Sharifs were on their way out but then Musharraf intervened and made siyasi shaheeds out of both just as people were learning how to use the power of their vote !

Increased provincial autonomy will be a blunder in Pakistani set up. It is asking for trouble. Rather than doing that, cohesiveness should be enhanced by encouraging politicians from all corners of the country to take decisions for the entire country together. Yes some leeway should be given to provinces by mutual consent of all decision makers (not just the politicians of one province alone) but not always. Progressive Change should be brought about slowly.

So you want One Unit all over again ? How did that work out last time ?

Pakistan cannot claim to be a Federal country when it operates like a Unitary state. Pakistan is too diverse in terms of its ethnicities, tribes and languages to be ruled from the centre. Local people are better equipped to decide what's best for their local communities.

A truly federal, decentralised system, embracing the diversity of the population, can enhance the unity of the country. The only policies the centre should control is taxation, defence, foreign affairs, healthcare and energy. Everything else should be devolved to the provinces.

 

[DW44]

No system is "the right system" as long as the end goal is not right. Pakistan is a third world country and governments in third world countries have very limited resources, financial and institutional, to work with which means that at any given time only one or two issues can dominate the agenda while the rest get ignored. In Pakistan's case, due to the country's obsession with religion, the issues that dominate Pakistani politics are social issues (blasphemy, khatm e nabuat, status of Ahmadis, Valentines day and so on) which means economic issues get zero attention. That is not on any government but the people of Pakistan and replacing the system of governance with a new one means that instead of a PM, we will have a president spending most of his time assuring everyone how tough he is on blasphemy. The kind of reform needed involves a shift in priorities and that's not about to happen.

As far as secular dictators go, we all saw how secular Mush was when Hizb ut Tahrir banners hung from the walls in Peshawar cantt and Lashkar e Jhangvi transformed from another ragtag militia into a fearsome army comparable to TTP in terms of manpower, funding and firepower under Mush's watch. Pakistan's political system puts a lot of power in the public's hands, even during dictatorships (see how Mush was forced out at the end) and politicians' survival hinges on pandering to the public's Islamist agenda which is why supposedly 'secular' leaders like Mush and ZAB (who was almost certainly an atheist) pander Ed so hard to Islamists.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No system is "the right system" as long as the end goal is not right. Pakistan is a third world country and governments in third world countries have very limited resources, financial and institutional, to work with which means that at any given time only one or two issues can dominate the agenda while the rest get ignored. In Pakistan's case, due to the country's obsession with religion, the issues that dominate Pakistani politics are social issues (blasphemy, khatm e nabuat, status of Ahmadis, Valentines day and so on) which means economic issues get zero attention. That is not on any government but the people of Pakistan and replacing the system of governance with a new one means that instead of a PM, we will have a president spending most of his time assuring everyone how tough he is on blasphemy. The kind of reform needed involves a shift in priorities and that's not about to happen.

As far as secular dictators go, we all saw how secular Mush was when Hizb ut Tahrir banners hung from the walls in Peshawar cantt and Lashkar e Jhangvi transformed from another ragtag militia into a fearsome army comparable to TTP in terms of manpower, funding and firepower under Mush's watch. Pakistan's political system puts a lot of power in the public's hands, even during dictatorships (see how Mush was forced out at the end) and politicians' survival hinges on pandering to the public's Islamist agenda which is why supposedly 'secular' leaders like Mush and ZAB (who was almost certainly an atheist) pander Ed so hard to Islamists.

Well, surely that is the whole point of government, to 'pander to the public' wishes, at least it is if you believe in democracy. I would imagine if the country slides downhill as a result sooner or later the same public will stop being obsessed with religion and will look for other answers.

 

[Syed1]

Well the presidential form of government isn't fool proof either. Heck the richest country in the world elected a buffoon like Trump as their president.


The parliamentary form of government is still the most ideal in a Pakistani scenario, however, what needs to happen is that if you want to form a government in the center you should have elected seats from all provinces, or you are allied with parties that are elected from the provinces in which you didn't get seats. What happens right now is that the people of Punjab pick Nawaz Sharif and he is ruling over the rest of Pakistan even though he won't even win a councilor election in the other three provinces. I understand that Punjab is 50% of Pakistan and winning there pretty much ensures you will form government in the center, but in the Pakistani dynamics it means the victor of Punjab can stay within the boundaries of the province for their whole term and still get re-elected.

There is a similar situation in Canada where the province of Ontario has the largest population and most seats but parties who win from here make extra effort in other provinces so that next election they win from other provinces as well. In Pakistan all you have to do is keep focusing on Punjab.


This will put serious strain on the federation. We didn't take independence from the British to be enslaved to the Punjabi ruling elite (they have enslaved people of their own province as well but that is a discussion for another thread).

 

[Syed1]

^To add to the above, Punjab is roughly 50% of Pakistan and from that PML-N manages to get 60% of the votes, which means PML-N and Nawaz Sharif are the choice of just 30% of Pakistan and they are ruling over 100% of it.

 

[DRsohail]

^To add to the above, Punjab is roughly 50% of Pakistan and from that PML-N manages to get 60% of the votes, which means PML-N and Nawaz Sharif are the choice of just 30% of Pakistan and they are ruling over 100% of it.

Completely agreed.and that party then only focuses on one province and the other ones .Like how many time shobaz went with nawaz on foreign tours.

 

[DW44]

Well, surely that is the whole point of government, to 'pander to the public' wishes, at least it is if you believe in democracy. I would imagine if the country slides downhill as a result sooner or later the same public will stop being obsessed with religion and will look for other answers.

In a republic, there would be limits to what the voters can demand from their government with some very strict no go areas but since Pakistan leans far more towards the Islamic part of its name than it does to the Republic one, I say let the people enjoy the system they clearly want. Just please don't whine about poverty and corruption though since its clear those things are not a priority to our voters.

 

[DRsohail]

[MENTION=26195]DW44[/MENTION] u always hit the nail well.Our priorities are not those which we talk here on PP.

 

[the Great Khan]

The parliamentary system is fine. But the way its implemented is not. We need to look at the way the country is administered. Devolution of powers to the grassroots and away from the MP's is the only way to educate the voter. The biggest dhandli and disservice to this nation was zardari getting rid of the devolved form of government so that he could rule as a godfather. That man has a special place in hell reserved for him.

We need to remove the power of the "development" budget from the hands of Mp's. If we devolve things to a local level with councils and panchiyaats (village councils) things will begin to improve. We also need to improve our law and order and reform the police. Also decrease the size of the provinces so that devolution can happen successfully. If you do this you will see how people's voting patterns change. You wont be able to buy people as easily because people will feel they have a stake in their local area. At the moment its not the case....

 

[the Great Khan]

In a republic, there would be limits to what the voters can demand from their government with some very strict no go areas but since Pakistan leans far more towards the Islamic part of its name than it does to the Republic one, I say let the people enjoy the system they clearly want. Just please don't whine about poverty and corruption though since its clear those things are not a priority to our voters.

can you elaborate on the part about Islamic? Islam does not specify the type of system that is to be used for governance...

 

[DW44]

can you elaborate on the part about Islamic? Islam does not specify the type of system that is to be used for governance...

Islam does however have its own legal code, or at least that's what 211 million Pakistanis seem to believe and approximately 91% of them want implemented, 67 of those 91% opining that it should be the only law of the land (the other 24% saying it should coexist with existing laws). It does not specify a system of governance and that's really my point, that the system is irrelevant, it's the goals that system is meant to achieve that's the main issue here.

 

[Syed1]

Islam does however have its own legal code, or at least that's what 211 million Pakistanis seem to believe and approximately 91% of them want implemented, 67 of those 91% opining that it should be the only law of the land (the other 24% saying it should coexist with existing laws). It does not specify a system of governance and that's really my point, that the system is irrelevant, it's the goals that system is meant to achieve that's the main issue here.

This brings us back to the original point of the poster you were debating. If left to the people of Pakistan they will keep voting on non-issues and sell their votes on biryanis and keemay walay naan, hence we need a secular dictator an Ataturk if you will who will reform the nation.

 

[DW44]

This brings us back to the original point of the poster you were debating. If left to the people of Pakistan they will keep voting on non-issues and sell their votes on biryanis and keemay walay naan, hence we need a secular dictator an Ataturk if you will who will reform the nation.

That kind of dictator can only come from one place in Pakistan and given their track record, I wouldn't hold my breath for a Park or Ataturk. Right now Pakistan needs the former more than the latter. Pakistan can not be secularized by force, only through development and a development oriented dictator is not a possibility because unlike the Korean or Taiwanese militaries, ours is an active participant in the economy and by far the biggest beneficiary of the existing weak institutional and legal framework.

 

[DW44]

PS. Qeemay walay naan are not a thing in PML-N's strongholds. That's aaloo/mooli/gobi paratha country.

 

[saeedhk]

No system is "the right system" as long as the end goal is not right. Pakistan is a third world country and governments in third world countries have very limited resources, financial and institutional, to work with which means that at any given time only one or two issues can dominate the agenda while the rest get ignored. In Pakistan's case, due to the country's obsession with religion, the issues that dominate Pakistani politics are social issues (blasphemy, khatm e nabuat, status of Ahmadis, Valentines day and so on) which means economic issues get zero attention. That is not on any government but the people of Pakistan and replacing the system of governance with a new one means that instead of a PM, we will have a president spending most of his time assuring everyone how tough he is on blasphemy. The kind of reform needed involves a shift in priorities and that's not about to happen.

As far as secular dictators go, we all saw how secular Mush was when Hizb ut Tahrir banners hung from the walls in Peshawar cantt and Lashkar e Jhangvi transformed from another ragtag militia into a fearsome army comparable to TTP in terms of manpower, funding and firepower under Mush's watch. Pakistan's political system puts a lot of power in the public's hands, even during dictatorships (see how Mush was forced out at the end) and politicians' survival hinges on pandering to the public's Islamist agenda which is why supposedly 'secular' leaders like Mush and ZAB (who was almost certainly an atheist) pander Ed so hard to Islamists.

Pakistani leaders are Islamists one day and athiests the other. They do anything and everything to cling to power. Also, there is so much Saudi influence in our country that nothing can be done to LeJ and the likes of Mullah Burqa and other anti-Shia clerics.

We need someone like Jibran Nasir.

 

[DW44]

Pakistani leaders are Islamists one day and athiests the other. They do anything and everything to cling to power. Also, there is so much Saudi influence in our country that nothing can be done to LeJ and the likes of Mullah Burqa and other anti-Shia clerics.

We need someone like Jibran Nasir.

LeJ is not protected by Saudis. LeT and Aziza K are. LeJ is protected entirely by indigenous powers.

 

[saeedhk]

LeJ is not protected by Saudis. LeT and Aziza K are. LeJ is protected entirely by indigenous powers.

LeJ leaders do visit the blessed land regularly and hold meetings with Saudi officials. Agree with you that they have the full backing of the Boys.

 

[the Great Khan]

Islam does however have its own legal code, or at least that's what 211 million Pakistanis seem to believe and approximately 91% of them want implemented, 67 of those 91% opining that it should be the only law of the land (the other 24% saying it should coexist with existing laws). It does not specify a system of governance and that's really my point, that the system is irrelevant, it's the goals that system is meant to achieve that's the main issue here.

Yes it does have a legal code that can be administered by "learned" judges and administrators. But you still need to appoint a ruler. To this day we continue to struggle with the question of authority. INMHO we need to create a devolved democracy with a strong rule of law and apparatus to bring development,progress and security at a local level.

 

[Pakistanian]

The Putin system

 

[Savak]

Whether the Pakistani state is secular or has the name Islamic Republic is just a formality. It doesn't have any significant bearing. What any head of state needs to do is to curb down extremism, secretarianism by full fledged force.

 

[Savak]

If we stick to the Parliamentary system then the President cannot be a figurehead, he must have the power to dismiss the prime minister

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In a republic, there would be limits to what the voters can demand from their government with some very strict no go areas but since Pakistan leans far more towards the Islamic part of its name than it does to the Republic one, I say let the people enjoy the system they clearly want. Just please don't whine about poverty and corruption though since its clear those things are not a priority to our voters.

I agree, you always get the government you deserve. But it's in man's nature to whine about something or other, regardless of who forms the government, some people will whine about poverty, some people will whine about atheists, some people will whine about Islam, others will whine about aloo gobi. It's life and all it's little idiosyncrasies.

 

[KB]

Its true many vote on basis of blind partisan loyalty (not unique to Pakistan - see Republicans in the South of the US) or biraderi. However, Pakistanis did punish PPP at the 2013 elections for poor performance. KPK regularly turfs out underperforming provincial governments. In 1997 the PPP were decimated and in 1999 the Sharifs were on their way out but then Musharraf intervened and made siyasi shaheeds out of both just as people were learning how to use the power of their vote !

The ideal is often thought to be voters rising above themselves, above their own interests for the national or social good; of them studying policies carefully and voting in a rational manner. Yet, the reality even amongst the educated in the ‘west’ is somewhat different. Voting is often shaped by class and religious affiliations. In much of Europe, Catholics have tended to vote for parties on the right. In the UK, though, historically Catholics were often of Irish heritage and working class in background and have tended to vote for parties on the left. Far from acting rationally, people don’t like to admit they are wrong, so will often continue to vote for same parties. The idea of subconscious biases is well established now. Cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning - these factors impact all, not just the ‘poor rural population’. There is even some work which suggests that those individuals, small in number admittedly, who have not made a decision when entering the voting booth often end up voting for the first candidate on the list. And while we may like to think we have arrived at our conclusions in an independent minded way, in truth families influence individuals as well. The hard truth is also, that few, even in the ‘west’ study the miniature of policies. In this context to berate the ‘poor rural population’ of Pakistan is not only condescending but makes little sense.

It is also simply untrue that in Pakistan the rural population has never been swayed by wider ideological and social agendas, and that only ‘vertical’ ties with patrons count. Phillip Jones, in his outstanding work on the rise of the PPP, provided a detailed study of the 1970 elections in the Punjab, studying elections results at the level of polling stations. Whilst of course local ties mattered, he also pointed clearly to “the ‘horizontal’ character of the pro-PPP vote patterns in the 1970 elections…the PPP vote largely represented a rejection of traditional (parochial or vertical) loyalties in reference for perceived economic and social interests, as articulated in the PPP programme.” His conclusion based on solid research was emphatic: “in fifty-four (or 65.9 per cent) of eighty-two NA constituencies in Punjab, majorities or near-majorities rejected parochial considerations and voted for a party that promised to break open elite institutions and to broaden access to education, medical care, commercial enterprise, industrial management, land ownership and political decision-making. The vote for the PPP was a vote for a levelling of hierarchical institutions and privileged behaviour. It was a vote against subjecthood in a static universe and a vote for participating citizenship in a dynamic one.”

 

[Pakistanian]

If we stick to the Parliamentary system then the President cannot be a figurehead, he must have the power to dismiss the prime minister

Scrap all that and adopt thw American system with 3 branches of government with the President as head of state and govt, all Latin American countries, phillipines, south korea, and Afghanistan follow this and its cause of the American influence on them.

 

[Mughal]

Proper system of government for mankind is deen of islam but that is only found in the quran not in minds of people.

What people know as deen of islam is in actual fact mazhab that is labelled deen of islam. It is mullaism for keeping in place ruling elite and money lending elite securely. Mankind will come to know deen of islam but not yet because they are not that desperate yet to realise the ways of life they have adopted so far are actually causing them all the problems they are complaining about as individuals and as societies.

Most people in the world are poor running after daily bread and any time they have on their hands they waste it on things not worth their time. Most powerful and rich people have busy lives gathering power and money and any time they have they too spend on things not worth their time.

So most people live as mere animals and do whatever comes to their minds. This is why our world is the way it is. People are busy trying to dominate each other by undermining each other and the end result is before our eyes so why complain about it? If we wanted we could have changed our world for the better by adopting the way of life that could help us do that.

People say they want to be good by ensuring well being of each other but they do not want to leave the way of life they have adopted which is for their death and destruction by hands of each other due to rivalries for personal gains at each other's expense.

 

[LordEddardStark]

People tend to find faults in parliamentary democracy itself by looking at the failed democratic experience of Pakistan. However that is not the case. The issue doesn't lie with parliamentary or presidential system itself, but how it is actually being implemented in Pakistan.

Personally I prefer presidential system, because it has clear boundaries between executive, legislature and judiciary. Whereas in a parliamentary system, the executive (PM and cabinet) are part of legislature as well. This removes a significant check over the performance of cabinet. However I also think that a presidential system is ill suited for an ethnically diverse country like Pakistan because vote for a single person by entire country would effectively mean that no person from a small province would ever be able to become president.

The parliamentary democracy being implemented here is inherently flawed. The non devolution of democracy to the basic level means that a common man would never be able to relate to the system as they should ideally. Moreover, such non devolution implies that funds would be retained by lawmakers, which opens system to all kind of ordeals. Lastly in a democracy confined to 1 federal and 4 provincial capitals would never allow a common person to realize the power of his vote. He would always think of himself as a small and negligible part of a big machinery and would always vote along the lines of majority. For a democratic system to succeed, it has to be brought down to the level of masses.

 

[OoparCut]

People tend to find faults in parliamentary democracy itself by looking at the failed democratic experience of Pakistan. However that is not the case. The issue doesn't lie with parliamentary or presidential system itself, but how it is actually being implemented in Pakistan.

Personally I prefer presidential system, because it has clear boundaries between executive, legislature and judiciary. Whereas in a parliamentary system, the executive (PM and cabinet) are part of legislature as well. This removes a significant check over the performance of cabinet. However I also think that a presidential system is ill suited for an ethnically diverse country like Pakistan because vote for a single person by entire country would effectively mean that no person from a small province would ever be able to become president.

The parliamentary democracy being implemented here is inherently flawed. The non devolution of democracy to the basic level means that a common man would never be able to relate to the system as they should ideally. Moreover, such non devolution implies that funds would be retained by lawmakers, which opens system to all kind of ordeals. Lastly in a democracy confined to 1 federal and 4 provincial capitals would never allow a common person to realize the power of his vote. He would always think of himself as a small and negligible part of a big machinery and would always vote along the lines of majority. For a democratic system to succeed, it has to be brought down to the level of masses.

Quality post.


Biggest need for governance systems of any kind is a healthy structure of CHECKS AND BALANCES.

To an outsider, it looks like Pakistan's system very badly lacks this aspect. Because the systemic structures that should work against stakeholders like the parliament or military abusing their power - i.e. the constitution, judiciary - these have been manipulated and hollowed out to begin with.

I read this article today in the Dawn newspaper with interest. And was surprised and depressed to read a claim by a lawyer who has served in the Pakistani parliament - that the supreme court does not have a right to interpret the constitution. I mean, what a terrible position to take! If the highest court in the nation can't interpret the constitution, then who is responsible for doing that? Some random elected representative? Some appointed bureaucrat? Its completely @ss-backwards.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1392689/chief-justice-asks-if-the-supreme-court-can-annul-incompetently-passed-law

And before I get accused of being an Indian criticizing Pakistan unfairly - let me clarify - even India's much vaunted democratic system suffers from a similar lack of proper checks and balances. Elected Parliament has given itself way too much power, and the Supreme court has turned "activist" in order to combat this problem. One recalls the example of the former President Kalam - who questioned the passage of the anti-corruption law by saying it wasn't rigorous enough, only to be told by the Parliament that the President is not much than a glorified rubber-stamp, and that he doesn't have any real authority to challenge the Parliament. Very flawed

People are always going to be corrupt. Everywhere. And especially more so in populous societies that are not wealthy to begin with. The governance system should be designed expecting corruption and malfeaseance. And the systems themselves should have a built-in check against that. Good luck if you are expecting the inmates who are running the asylum to institute the changes required though.

 

[the Great Khan]

you can have a presidential system, democracy, monarchy, or whatever. It wont work. Why? because the population is uneducated, the police are corrupt and the court system too slow. Basic amenities are only available to those with wealth. Pakistanis need to stop asking the wrong questions. You should be asking for better basic healthcare, education and and amenities then work backwards from there.

You need to ensure that development funds are not given to MP's. Councils and devolved local insitutions should be responsible for the dissemination of funds. But you cannot have those unless you have strong law and order bodies. Everything else is worth nothing if you cant bring criminals to justice.