Mudassir Nawaz
Pakistan’s fragile democracy has taken another jolt. The coalition government has managed to pass the 27th Constitutional Amendment through both houses of parliament. The opposition, weak and divided, failed to mount any real resistance. The ruling coalition, with its comfortable majority, found no difficulty in converting the draft into law. What has shocked many, however, is the content of this amendment — a change that shakes the very foundation of the Constitution.
The new legislation brings the judiciary closer to executive control and alters the structure of the armed forces. The amendment subordinates the Supreme Court to a newly formed Federal Constitutional Court. It also rewrites several constitutional articles governing military command. In the National Assembly, one clause was added to clarify that the current Chief Justice of Pakistan will continue to hold office. The bill now returns to the Senate for final approval.
Legal experts, civil society, and opposition leaders have condemned the 27th Amendment. They believe it undermines judicial independence and distorts the balance of power. The opposition, led by PTI, has called it a “scar on democracy” and a “humiliation for Pakistan on the world stage.” Many see it as a deliberate move to curb dissent and weaken institutions that should serve as checks on executive overreach.
The amendment follows the earlier 26th Constitutional Amendment. It empowers the Federal Constitutional Court to issue binding decisions over all other courts, including the Supreme Court. It gives the executive authority to transfer high court judges. Judges who refuse such transfers will be deemed retired. This clause has alarmed the judiciary and legal community, as it compromises judicial independence.
The changes extend beyond the judiciary. The amendment rewrites Article 243, which previously outlined the structure of military command. It abolishes the post of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and creates a new office of Chief of Defence Forces. This position carries expanded constitutional powers. The amendment also introduces the role of Commander of National Strategic Command and grants lifetime privileges to five-star generals. Supporters say it strengthens defence institutions. Critics see it as the militarisation of constitutional space.
The government has defended its decision. Ministers argued that the opposition has no moral authority to complain. They reminded PTI how it had previously bulldozed legislation during its own term in office, including when a no-confidence motion was pending against Imran Khan. The treasury benches maintain that the 27th Amendment aims to improve governance, enhance defence, and reform the justice system. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari defended the bill, saying it “fulfils the promises of the Charter of Democracy.” He added that the new structure gives constitutional protection to the field marshal’s rank and modernises national defence.
Despite these explanations, the amendment has exposed deep political and constitutional divisions. It has raised questions about whether reforming institutions requires bypassing democratic consensus. The debate is not only about what the government intends to achieve, but how it goes about achieving it. Legislation passed without broad consultation risks creating instability. Democracy demands dialogue, not dominance.
The defence of the amendment rests on the claim that it strengthens Pakistan’s deterrence and governance capacity. That may be true in theory, but the process through which it was achieved damages trust. The judiciary’s independence is central to a functioning democracy. When it appears compromised, public confidence erodes. The same applies to the balance of civil and military authority. Constitutional power should never tilt entirely in one direction.
The 27th Amendment might have been intended to modernise governance, but it risks doing the opposite. It deepens mistrust among political forces and further divides institutions already struggling to regain credibility. True reform requires consensus, transparency, and respect for constitutional boundaries. Pakistan’s political system cannot afford more polarisation. The government must reflect on whether short-term control is worth the long-term cost to democracy.
