Major differences between 1963 and 1979 constitutions

Following the First Republic and Second Republic Constitution, the differences between 1963 and 1979 constitutions are stated below in the table provided:

	First Republic Constitution	Second Republic Constitution
1.	It was a replica of the British type of parliamentary or cabinet system of government.	It was based on the American type of presidential system of government.
2.	The prime minister was the head of government and the president, ceremonial head of state.	The executive president was both the head of state and government.
3.	The prime minister was the leader of the party that won majority of seats in parliament.	The president might not be from the party that won the majority of seats in parliament.
4.	The prime minister was not directly elected but was chosen from the elected legislators in parliament.	The president was elected through direct election by the electorate in a general election.
5.	The prime minister appointed his ministers from his party members in the parliament.	The executive president appointed his ministers outside the parliament. He was not restricted to his party only for the appointment.
6.	A minister was a member of the parliament as well as the executive.	A minister was not a member of parliament. He belonged only to the executive arm of government.
7.	There was a fusion of power. The legislature and the executive were fused.	There was a clear separation of powers. Each organ exercised its functions distinctly.
8.	There was officially a legally recognized opposition party.	There was no such recognition in the 1979 constitution.
9.	There was collective responsibility of ministers. (principle of collective responsibility).	There was individual responsibility of the ministers.
10.	The prime minister could be removed from office, if a vote of no confidence was passed on him.	The executive president could be removed from office through impeachment.
11	There was parliament supremacy	There was the supremacy of the constitution.