opinion to which ministers arc bound to give careful consideration but what they advise finally is binding on him. That being so. if the ministers themselves accept the sovereign's opinion, the system docs not cause to be parliamentary. The will of the majority party, as represented by the Cabinet, has to prevail and if it is their desire that they should be guided by the Head of the State, we fail to see how such a course is opposed to the parliamentary practice. The dominant position of the Quaid was a tower of strength to the ministry and it was our great misfortune that we could not have his guidance longer than a year after we became independent. After him, power passed entirely into the hands of the Prime Minister. There was no specific provision in the Constitution Act that the advice given by the ministers was binding on the Governor-General and the Governors, but the accepted position was that that advice was binding on them. It was held in 1948, by the tribunal which tried the first Chief Minister of Sind. who had been dismissed for mal-administration, misconduct and corruption, that aid and advise', as used in sections 9 and 15 of the Constitution Act, made the advice of the council of ministers binding on the Governor-General and the Governor in federal and provincial affairs respectively. After examining the position of the Governor in the said Act, it was observed that his position in respect of his ministers was analogous to that of the British sovereign under the British Constitution. The late Constitution, following, in the main, the pattern of the Constitution Act as far as the relations of the President and the Governors with the ministers were concerned, added a specific provision that the advice of ministers was binding on the President and the Governors. The legislatures which were to be elected under this Constitution had not come into existence but that fact by itself did not change the pattern of government. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the system of government in force in Pakistan, during the period under review, was not parliamentary. That this pattern was not worked successfully by us in the past is clear from even a cursory perusal of the political history of the period particularly from 1953 on wards.
Views on Causes of Failure
10. The various views expressed with regard to the nature, and causes, of the failure to work successfully the parliamentary form of government, can broadly be grouped as follows:
(1) Lack of proper elections and defects in the late Constitution.
(2) Undue interference by the Heads of the State with the ministries and political parties, and by the Central Government with the functioning of the governments in the provinces.
(3) Lack of leadership resulting in lack of well-organized and disciplined parties, the general lack of character in the politicians and their undue interference in the administration.
Conclusions and Reasons
11. In our opinion, the real causes of the abovementioned failure are to be found more in the last mentioned group of opinions than in the first two groups. Before
