Abstract
Both Pakistan and India chose parliamentary democracy as their system of government when they gained independence in August 1947. However, for more than 50 years after independence, Pakistan has not been able to establish a stable parliamentary democratic system of government. The constitution has been abrogated or discontinued several times, and the system of government has been unpredictable, with a cabinet system at times, a presidential system at others, and a military regime for almost half of the time. But since its beginning, India's parliamentary democracy has not evolved. The experience of India's 50 years of nation-building shows that parliamentary democracy has been accepted by the people and politicians of India. The international community generally agrees that the implementation of parliamentary democracy in India has been a success and that its development has been healthy. Why, then, are there such contrasts in the establishment and implementation of the system of government in two countries that share the same historical background and declared independence at the same time? One had a functioning parliamentary democracy, while the other had frequent regime changes and successive military regimes. This article attempts a preliminary examination and comparison of this issue.