Suranjit Sen Gupta wants a return to a presidential form of government. Asif bhai at Dhakashohor (who’s not in Dhaka shohor and is missing it terribly, it seems) calls it a choice between Coke and Pepsi.

Instead he seems content to transfer us from a Prime Ministerial dictatorship into a Presidential one without a hint of “checks and balances”.

Well said, Asif bhai. I was actually talking about this earlier with my brother (who’s also, coincidentally known as Asif). We’re already in a system where power resides in the hands of a strong executive without any legislative oversight. To call ours a Westminster-style democracy turned dictatorship is incorrect. The whole concept of a Westminster-style democracy is negated by Article 70. This is of course not an original observation. Article 70 has been criticized multiple times by a number of people. But I think it’s necessary to keep bringing it up. We must not forget that a democratic system is inoperable as long as Article 70 is in play. It needs to be on top of any credible reform proposal, higher than internal party democracy. Higher even than corruption, which really is a symptom of systemic gaps.

For the last 15 years we’ve lived in a presidential form of government in anything but name. Institutionally, the office of the prime minister and not the parliament decided how the country would be run. Given what the institutional framework of our country is - we could have called our system a presidential system, had the presidential elections using an electoral college system, and come out with the same sorry 15-year political farce/tragedy that we’ve lived through. Only the names would have been different. It would have been like my taking up the temporary pen name of Talwar instead of Shamshir for the period between January and June.

So may be the choice that Suranjit Sen Gupta places is not between Coke and Pepsi (I can tell a difference) but between Coke in a dark red can and Coke in a light red can. 

I do welcome Tofael Ahmed, Abdur Razzak and Suranjit Sen Gupta calling for constitutional amendments. All of the talk - both from the political leadership in the parties and the SOE government - has had a distinctly short term hue. While they may improve matters in the short-term, the real problems are more fundamental. They have to do with how we conceive of the means and goals of government.

I was too young to remember how extensive the discussions were around the 91 referendum. My sense is that the debate about what the system of government should be back then was pretty shallow. In fact, it seems that our constitutional debates have always been rather shallow. I would welcome readers to correct me if I am wrong, and educate me.