The matter of constitutional reforms

A debate on some large-scale constitutional reforms has been underway since last few weeks when a statement was made by the interior minister.

The minister may have certainly expressed his sincere feelings and frustration over the prevailing political system but it would have been better that debate and decisions were made in the cabinet meetings as he was bound by the principle of collective responsibility.

The complaint with the system generally comes when the constitution is not followed and the source of all powers-the constitution is over-looked while exercising powers thereunder.

The proposed idea of increasing the number of provinces and undertaking large scales constitutional reforms for the stated reasons that present system has failed to deliver needs to be carefully examined.

The proposed constitutional reforms, whose scale remains uncertain, to end the monopoly of the few over politics and political offices. An uneven development in the provinces and misuse of financial resources over the past several decades has seemingly caused disaffection in people is another cause for the proposed changes.

Even the hard-earned foreign good-will and resources, including the aid, loans and remittances, do not reflect any substantial change, except in few pockets and for few families, and most of the areas remain underdeveloped. The youth is under-educated, misdirected and under-nourished and over-angered and their anger is being diverted for political objects.

The most critical reason for the proposed constitutional reforms is the increasing terrorism that has almost paralyzed the country and drained its resources and inflicted huge losses in terms of human and financial resources. Brave officers and soldiers have laid their lives for the nation but their sacrifices are not being sincerely and properly appreciated in the unending political noise. In order to fight terrorism and to bring change these constitutional reforms are necessary.

The present political and constitutional framework is a relic from the Government of India Act, 1935 and a mix of the patchy work of 1962 constitution, which contains an ornamental preamble, fundamental rights and principles of policy, good for nothing, as the constitution has inherent tensions.

The federal and parliamentary system essentially lacks internal and external checks and balances over the decisions and policymaking and fundamentally exclude people of Pakistan from the whole system- their votes do not necessarily decide the matter of power and policy. Peoples’ choices are dictated by their needs and their opinions are manipulated by catchy slogans and false promises. For them, the presidential or parliamentary or federal or unitary systems do not matter.

Like the Minto’s Naya Qanoon, for them, it all remains the same. During the last eighty years, all types of changes have been made and experimented to fix the system but one thing remains constant- the unchanged lot of the common man.

After making a declaration of independence in 1776, for instance, 13 former colonies British colonies in America, forged a confederation on 15 November 1777. Within a period of six years, the founding fathers realized that the said confederation could not ensure common defence and prosperity and thus on 17 September 1787, they signed the American Constitution in the historic Philadelphia Convention.

France had five republics over the past two hundred years. It is thus not unusual for nations to reset their national political order when the existing political and constitutional system does not deliver.

The proponents of the parliamentary system insist on its continuance mainly for two reasons.

The people are familiar with it since many years. Secondly, in view of the federal structure only through a parliamentary system all provinces may have fair representation in the federal government. The bias against the larger provinces creates distrust. The argument against it is stronger and more convincing.

The parliamentary form of government is based on the fundamental principle of responsible government wherein the executive, though chosen from the assemblies and parliament, remains answerable to them. There is no sense of responsibility in Pakistan in the policy, decisions and legislation. There is yet another fundamental flaw in Pakistan’s parliamentary system.

Legislatures, both in the provinces and federation, lack control over the purse as there is no provision for the appropriation laws. The whole treasury and financial resources are there without any parliamentary controls. The budget is passed with the authentication of the prime minister and chief ministers.

The vote on the financial matters is only limited to the grants and that too is made on the party lines. Responsible Government is an attitude reflecting social and moral substance of a society. The second main reason for the failure of the parliamentary system is directly linked with the voting system and single member constituency for national and provincial assemblies.

The history of parliamentary institutions in the Subcontinent (1861- 1956) shows that the British Indian Government introduced representative institutions gradually and by the process of nominations both in the executive and legislative councils. Those who got the chance at that time went on building and capturing the constituencies for all times to come with rare upsets. It was perhaps found easier to control these nominees and hereditary representatives.

The federations are built and strengthened by common interests and interdependence-common defence and prosperity, as the US constitution promised the people of different cultures and origins and languages a common defence and prosperity. In the neighbouring country, where culturally different south is connected with the dominating north, through the common objects of development and social and economic opportunities for all.

The form must match the substance. Needs and objects of reforms must connect ends with the means. A strong executive is a threat to liberties and a weak executive is a threat to the existence of the state.

The balance can be maintained only when power has its roots in people and the people make informed choices. Power must have a check over it which can only be secured by creating a balance between freedoms and order.

The order must be secured to ensure liberties and large public good. Reforms require consensus and consent. Any change made even with sincerity of purpose will sustain the test of the time only if it is based on consent. Consent ensures obedience.

Provinces need independent finance commissions providing for a local government system with constitutional protection without undermining the federation would require a constitutional design that connects normatively the whole with its parts-provinces and local government, to promote common good.

The division of state resources-both natural and taxes, must be meant for all people and equally assessable and beneficial for all without region, race and affiliation. The key to the success of any reforms lies in the collective wisdom and by an informed advice and opinion.

Sindh got separated from Bombay and NWFP became full province in 1935. The Punjab got divided and Bahawalpur got merged into the Punjab in 1955. Balochistan was a Chief Commissioner’s province and the Federation paid 8 million USD for Gwadar. Each province must be economically viable and culturally vibrant. The good done to the people and state must live on and should not be momentary.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026