Battle for Constitutional Balance
Rahim Ullah Tajik (Part 1)
Islamabad: Global politics is undergoing a period of considerable uncertainty. As regional conflicts intensify and traditional alliances face new pressures, the international order is increasingly shaped by strategic competition and transactional interests.
For politically and economically fragile states, these developments can exacerbate existing domestic challenges, placing additional strain on governance and institutional stability.
Pakistan is particularly vulnerable to these pressures, given its economic constraints, persistent security threats, and longstanding political divisions.
Against this backdrop, concerns about democratic backsliding and the concentration of executive authority have become increasingly prominent.
The central question is whether Pakistan’s institutions can respond to these challenges effectively without weakening the constitutional principles that underpin democratic governance.
International assessments offer one indication of the country’s democratic difficulties, although such rankings cannot fully capture the complexities of its political environment.
The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute’s Liberal Democracy Index has placed Pakistan among countries facing significant democratic challenges. These assessments raise concerns about the independence of public institutions, the effectiveness of legislative oversight, and the protection of civil liberties. Yet the underlying issues extend beyond international rankings.
For many citizens, the more immediate concern is whether the legislature, judiciary, and provincial governments can exercise their constitutional responsibilities independently and maintain public confidence in the state.
Restoring that confidence requires not only stronger institutions but also a clearer understanding of the pressures confronting them.
Pakistan’s current political trajectory reflects a difficult tension between the need for effective governance and the risks associated with concentrated power. As Michael Kugelman, Director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, has highlighted in his analysis of Pakistan’s political environment, institutional changes must be understood within the broader context of the country’s democratic and constitutional challenges.
The passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment in October 2024 brought these questions into sharp focus. The amendment introduced significant changes to the judicial appointment process, including a parliamentary role in selecting the Chief Justice of Pakistan from among the three most senior judges, alongside changes to judicial tenure and the composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan.
Supporters of the amendment have argued that these changes could improve judicial accountability and address concerns about the concentration of authority within the judiciary itself. From this perspective, judicial reform is not inherently incompatible with democratic governance. Courts, like other state institutions, must operate within a framework of accountability and institutional responsibility.
Nevertheless, the manner in which reforms are designed and implemented is critical. If appointment procedures lack transparent criteria or allow political considerations to outweigh judicial merit, reforms intended to improve accountability may instead undermine public confidence in judicial independence.
The challenge, therefore, is not simply to determine whether the judiciary requires reform but to ensure that reform strengthens institutional credibility rather than shifting the balance of power in favour of the executive or the ruling coalition.
These concerns have also featured in legal commentary. Reema Omer, a senior legal adviser associated with the International Commission of Jurists, has raised concerns about the implications of changes to judicial independence and the constitutional framework. Such concerns deserve serious consideration, particularly because the judiciary serves as an important safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of state power.
At the same time, the legitimacy of judicial authority depends on public confidence in the courts’ impartiality, consistency, and willingness to remain within their constitutional mandate. A sustainable approach must therefore recognise both the importance of judicial independence and the need for transparent, accountable judicial institutions.
Parliamentary participation in appointments is not necessarily incompatible with an independent judiciary, but safeguards against political interference are essential to ensuring that institutional accountability does not become a mechanism for partisan influence.
The relationship between executive authority and provincial autonomy presents another significant test for Pakistan’s constitutional order. The country’s federal structure is designed to accommodate regional diversity while maintaining national cohesion, making cooperation between federal and provincial governments particularly important.
However, persistent political confrontation has strained this relationship, especially where the federal government and provincial administrations are controlled by opposing political parties.
Constitutional provisions concerning emergencies and the exercise of federal authority are intended to address exceptional circumstances in which ordinary governance arrangements may be insufficient.
Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution provide mechanisms for responding to specific emergencies and constitutional difficulties, subject to their respective requirements. In principle, such provisions can serve legitimate public interests when circumstances genuinely demand extraordinary intervention. Their use, however, requires careful scrutiny, particularly when the measures affect an elected provincial government.
Debates surrounding KP illustrate the difficulty of reconciling security concerns with provincial democratic representation. The province continues to face serious militant violence, and the federal government has a legitimate responsibility to protect citizens and maintain national security.
Federal officials, including Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, have emphasised the scale of the security challenge and raised concerns about the provincial government’s capacity to respond effectively.
These arguments cannot simply be dismissed, given the human cost of militant attacks and the wider implications of insecurity for Pakistan’s stability.
Nevertheless, security concerns alone cannot settle the constitutional question. Any proposal to invoke emergency provisions or impose Governor’s rule must be assessed against the specific constitutional conditions governing such action, the available evidence, and the proportionality of the proposed response.
The political composition of a provincial government should not, in itself, determine whether extraordinary intervention is justified. Equally, an elected administration must remain accountable for its performance, including its handling of public safety.
The objective should be to establish whether constitutional requirements have been met rather than allowing competing political narratives to determine the outcome.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which has opposed federal measures affecting its provincial authority, has framed the dispute as an infringement of its electoral mandate. Its leadership, including Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, has challenged federal actions through legal and political channels.
Such objections are an expected feature of constitutional politics, particularly when questions of provincial authority and democratic representation are involved.
The appropriate response is neither to presume that every federal intervention is politically motivated nor to accept executive claims of necessity without scrutiny. Independent judicial review, meaningful parliamentary debate, and transparent public justification are essential to determining whether extraordinary measures are constitutionally warranted.
Rahim Ullah Tajik is an MPhil scholar in IR at the National Defence University, Islamabad, with research interests in contemporary global and regional security dynamics. He can be reached at rahimullah15303@gmail.com.
The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.
