In April 26 2011, Nick Grono, Deputy President of the International Crisis Group, did have a presentation at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office London, pertaining rule of law and justice system in Afghanistan.The facts highlighted by that very report might be hurting as usual, nevertheless it is worth suffering for, entailing the weakened areas of system and government to be improved. The report raised concerns relative to adoption of presidential system under 2004 constitution in the light of surveillance of worsened perpetual state of affairs, revealed that the enormous power vested in president not only has exacerbated and weakened judicial institutions effecting the equal implementation of rule of law, extensive patronage system but also the presence of high degree of constrictions to undertake any constitutional reforms to avert the state of affairs. How long should the hapless people of Afghanistan continue suffering and blame their ill-fates? Who to blame for inefficiencies, an individual or the system the government pursues?

Success of any form of government depends on the existence of political culture in the country. While, democracy which is an evolutionary process, gets mature due to political culture and rule of law. The question we deal is not the accuracy of political system but in reality, the availability of such a political condition in the country where there is respect for rule of law, and above all respect for all institutions.

A system cannot ensure whether it will work successfully or not. What we need in Afghanistan is not a titanic type of system? But we need such a government where political culture nourishes, rule of law prevails and every man enjoys his rights. We need such a system which ensures greater freedom of the people. Parliament mainly consists of the representatives of the people and they are supposed to safeguard people’s interest and redress their grievances. Let’s evaluate the two system of government, parliamentary and presidential based on the degree of litheness of either type inculcating people centered policies.

Accountable and transparent decision or law making process is possible only in parliamentary form of government. While in presidential form of government, president and executive are titled towards authoritarianism jut because of the absence of proper check and balance mechanism. Because president on one hand is accountable neither to the parliament nor to the cabinet, and executive is not accountable to the Parliament.

We understand parliamentarianism as a system of government in which the executive (the prime minister and cabinet: collectively, ‘the government’) is chosen by, and responsible to, an elective body of legislatures, thus creating a single locus of sovereignty at the national level. Presidentialism, to its contrary, is a system where policymaking power is divided between two separately elected bodies, the legislature and the president, provided the president has a propensity buying the allegiance legislatures and cabinet members.

Presidential system is rigid, in the sense that there is no way to remove a sitting president in between elections (usually held at fixed intervals). This lends the separate powers system a high degree of short-term stability. Parliamentary system is more flexible since the prime minister, and the ruling coalition at-large, may be removed at any time by parliamentary vote and elections may also be called at any time. Stability in the executive is a virtue as it allows leaders to credibly commit to policies and to stay on the course.

Parliamentarianism fosters a highly predictable, institutionalized form of politics and policymaking in which participants are part of the institutions. Presidentialism, by contrast, fosters a more personalized form of political behavior in which presidents, legislators, interest group leaders, and even bureaucrats all enjoy a degree of independence from the institutions of which they are nominally members.

However, if one observes a fairly consistent pattern across a wide range of associated variables, greater confidence is warranted. Outcome measures large in number and fall loosely into three policy areas: political development, economic development, and human development. Indicators of political development include two measures of corruption control and another from the World Bank’s governance indicators. We also employ a measure of bureaucratic quality. Lastly, we include three additional World Bank indicators: government effectiveness, political stability, and rule of law. In each case, higher scores suggest better governance in the area of political development.

Parliamentarianism offers better tools for resolving national issues than presidentialism within the framework of democracy. This is because parliamentarianism integrates a diversity of views, while providing greater incentives for actors to reach agreement. Consider a stylized comparison of decision making processes within the two systems. Both feature a similar set of players: a legislature with majority and minority parties, committees and separate leadership hierarchies, a cabinet, a chief executive (PM or president), and various government agencies. Yet, the interaction of these players, and the role that each institution assumes, tends to be quite different. In parliamentary systems, debate occurs in a highly institutionalized fashion within parties, within committees, within leadership groups, across parties, within the cabinet, and between cabinet-level ministers and high-level civil service appointees within the bureaucracy. In presidential systems, by contrast, most of these units have greater independence, and those without independence such as the cabinet, have very little power. The players that matter have the capacity, and often the incentive, to say no, or to insist upon side payments in exchange for support. While successful coordination can occur in this highly fragmented institutional sphere, resulting agreements may impose higher transaction costs than one would anticipate within a parliamentary system, where the incentives of the key actors are generally to reach agreement. This, in turn, is a product of how political careers and electoral incentives align within these various constitutional systems.

Seeing at eleven years long presidential system functioning in Afghanistan it is noted that opposition leaders, despite owing immense public mandate are bypassed on most of national issues and significant decisions. The pursuit of parliamentary system might alleviate their complaints coined with development of political culture leading to issue orientated policy formulations crystallized. Having kept certain facts in consideration, provisionally and broadly, relative to parliamentarianism and presidentialism, and what makes the former a more reliable vehicle for good public policy, is its capacity to function as a coordination device. The state is often conceptualized as a solution to the multiple coordination problems that emanate from society.