The Fragility of Constitutional Amendments

 Constitutions are not mere pieces of paper; they are the lifeblood of a nation, providing structure, continuity, and legitimacy to the state and its people. Like a glue that binds, a constitution holds a country together by establishing a framework for governance, rights, and duties. In Pakistan, the Constitution of 1973 has served this role, evolving over time to adapt to changing political and social circumstances. However, a recent attempt by the coalition government to pass a far-reaching constitutional package brings to light critical issues of legitimacy, transparency, and political maneuvering that could have had severe implications for the country.

The Undermining of Process: A Dangerous Precedent

On one fateful Sunday, without any prior notice or detailed disclosure, the coalition government attempted to push through a constitutional amendment package in both the National Assembly (NA) and the Senate. The move, if successful, would have altered the fundamental structure of the 1973 Constitution. The speed and secrecy with which this attempt was made highlight a disturbing trend: governance by stealth, where elected representatives and the public are kept in the dark about important legislative changes.

This brazen attempt undermined the deliberative process through which the 1973 Constitution was crafted—a process that involved prolonged debates and the informed consent of all provinces. Rushed amendments without transparency or input from elected representatives set a dangerous precedent, threatening the very democratic foundations of Pakistan.

Guiding Principles for Constitutional Amendments

Amending a constitution is a grave responsibility that should not be taken lightly. The recent fiasco offers an opportunity to revisit essential guidelines that should inform any constitutional amendment process:

1. Legitimacy
The 2024 elections in Pakistan have been marred by accusations of manipulation, particularly against the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). These claims raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the current coalition government. Without public confidence or moral authority, the government lacks the necessary mandate to amend the Constitution. Any attempt to do so under these circumstances would be viewed as illegitimate and undemocratic.

2. Bona Fides
It is widely believed that the primary motivation behind the proposed constitutional package was not the welfare of the state but rather to neutralize potential challenges from the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s decisions on reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies, and the bold stance of Islamabad High Court judges against interference from the security establishment, seem to have triggered this constitutional push. If the intent is to protect the government from judicial oversight, then the very essence of a democratic constitution is at risk.

3. Preservation of Basic Structure
The 1973 Constitution enshrines key principles such as the Islamic character of the state, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, and the protection of fundamental human rights. These elements form the bedrock of Pakistan’s legal and political system. Any amendments that erode these principles would not only be unconstitutional but also destabilizing for the nation.

4. Minimalism and Proportionality
When amending a constitution, it is important to avoid overreach. Minimal intervention should be the guiding principle, with proportional responses to issues at hand. For instance, instead of creating a new constitutional court to deal with judicial delays, why not first strengthen existing constitutional benches? Such measures would preserve the integrity of the Constitution while addressing operational inefficiencies.

5. Fact-Based Proposals
Each proposed amendment must be backed by data. If the objective is to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, then there must be a thorough analysis of the number of pending cases and delay factors in the civil, high, and Supreme Courts. Without data-driven insights, constitutional amendments risk being arbitrary and ineffective.

6. Transparency and Inclusive Participation
Any constitutional reform must be conducted in a transparent manner. The public and all stakeholders, including provincial governments, bar associations, and civil society, must be given ample time to participate in the process. A national conversation should precede any attempt to amend the Constitution, ensuring that it reflects the will of the people and is not the product of political expediency.

7. Free and Open Debate
Amendments to the Constitution should be debated openly in both the NA and the Senate, with full media coverage. The two-thirds majority required for passing such amendments must be achieved through informed discussions, not rushed voting processes. Prior informed consent is key to any

meaningful constitutional change.

8. Lawful Voting Procedures
The voting process for constitutional amendments must be free from coercion, especially by the security establishment, which has increasingly influenced Pakistan’s political governance. The sanctity of the vote must be upheld to ensure that any changes to the Constitution are both legally and morally acceptable.

A Cautionary Tale

The coalition government’s failed attempt to amend the Constitution without transparency or legitimacy is a cautionary tale for Pakistan’s political future. Constitutional amendments are not tools to be wielded for short-term political gain or protection against judicial oversight. They are sacred instruments of governance that should reflect the collective will of the people, not the narrow interests of a ruling elite.