It is often said that constitutional amendments and legislation are not matters of concern for the public. The common people, burdened by economic struggles, rarely take an interest in such issues. To provoke them further, our TV anchors roam around markets with microphones, asking the common man about their thoughts on proposed constitutional amendments. The answer is almost always the same: “We are out all day searching for bread and butter, what does this have to do with us? These amendments are for the benefit of politicians, what will the public gain from them?” Such responses are expected from the underprivileged masses when questioned about lawmaking. Those asking these questions should reflect on whether such queries should even be posed to the illiterate public. Ideally, these questions should be directed toward those knowledgeable in law.
The 1973 Constitution is a testament to the fact that despite many challenges, a consensus-based constitution was drafted, and the entire parliament approved it with full cooperation. No one said that the country was going through extremely tough times and that the people were suffering greatly, and so the constitution-making process should be halted until their suffering was alleviated.
They could have taken that route. They could have governed the country freely without any constitutional constraints. However, even in those extremely challenging circumstances, they chose to bind themselves to a constitution and gave the country a unanimous constitution. For the last fifty years, we have been bound by this very constitution. Without it, any ruler could have imposed their will, leading to chaos and dictatorship. Democratic politicians are bound by constitutional constraints, and if they take any step outside of it, our courts can stop them. While it is the parliament’s responsibility to make laws, it is the judiciary’s duty to ensure their enforcement.
If any ruler tries to exceed constitutional boundaries, the judiciary can prevent them from doing so. However, it is also true that not every institution in our country has performed its duties correctly. The judiciary is responsible for safeguarding and upholding the constitution. Yet, in the past, we have seen many instances where it has failed to perform this duty impartially. Worse still, it has often supported undemocratic rulers over democratic ones. Today, when efforts are being made to ensure that no one can make decisions based solely on personal preferences and dislikes, and that decisions are made according to the constitution and law, we see nothing wrong with this. This is why even Maulana Fazlur Rehman, who is part of the opposition in parliament, has agreed to the 26th constitutional amendment. He understands the challenges that democratic governments have faced in the past.
Amending laws in line with the circumstances is a hallmark and right of a democratic system. If it is deemed that the system cannot function under the current law, it can be changed. Constitutional amendments cannot be made by a single autocratic person. To amend the constitution, a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament is required. This is not an easy task. It requires overcoming significant obstacles, as we are witnessing today. Despite the government’s and its allies’ best efforts, they have been unable to secure a two-thirds majority for this amendment, and the matter remains unresolved.
Now, regarding the question of what the public stands to gain from this amendment: the public must understand that not every action should be viewed through the lens of immediate benefit. If the public votes for a party in the elections, they expect their elected leaders to make decisions for the public good without fear or hindrance. However, if the rulers are not allowed to work freely, how will the country’s situation improve? If political instability is created to obstruct economic stability, how can prosperity be achieved in the country?
This is why the Pakistan People’s Party, which is not formally part of the government, and its leadership, are working hard for the proposed constitutional amendments. Their efforts have led Maulana Fazlur Rehman to agree on a formula for the amendments. Even the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf has somewhat agreed to the proposed amendments, thanks to their efforts.
For a government to provide jobs and employment, it needs to be stable. If a government is constantly worried about being ousted, how can it make decisions for the public good? Such a government will always be preoccupied with survival. This instability has prevented our democratic system from flourishing.
No ruler in our history has eer completed their constitutional term. Unfortunately, the public continues to blame politicians for all failures. They fail to see which forces have prevented them from working peacefully. In the past, democracy was always under threat in our country. The custodians of the constitution started interpreting it according to their own preferences, turning it into a child’s plaything. Whoever wanted, interpreted it to suit their needs. However, the law they refer to was made by the parliament itself. While there is a law for contempt of court, there is no law for contempt of parliament. Parliament must now legislate to ensure its own dignity and respect.