Arshad Mahmood Awan
The 27th Constitutional Amendment is expected to be tabled in parliament within days. Yet, what is missing from the conversation is a genuine national debate — one that involves not just politicians, but the people whose collective will gives life to the Constitution itself. Constitutional law is the supreme law of the land. It defines how power is distributed, how citizens are protected, and how the federation holds together. Any attempt to amend it, therefore, must be rooted in the consent and participation of the nation, not merely the procedural authority of the legislature.
In a federation as complex as Pakistan, constitutional reform is not an ordinary legislative exercise. It is an act that reshapes the relationship between the federation and the provinces. For that reason alone, constitutional amendments demand the broadest possible consensus. Unfortunately, under Pakistan’s current framework, the power to amend the Constitution rests solely with the national parliament, leaving the provincial assemblies with no formal role in the process. This is a serious structural flaw.
A true federal democracy requires that all constituent units participate meaningfully in decisions that redefine the federation itself. Provincial assemblies, representing diverse political and cultural identities, should not be bystanders when their own constitutional powers are being discussed. If the spirit of federalism is to be honoured, these assemblies — and by extension, the people they represent — must be consulted before any constitutional amendment affecting federal relations is passed.
Follow Republic Policy on YouTube
Critics may argue that provincial assemblies are often politically constrained and do not always reflect the popular will. While that is a legitimate concern, it cannot justify bypassing them altogether. The solution lies in strengthening democratic representation, not weakening federal participation. Democracy, by its nature, is a process of debate, disagreement, and eventual consensus. To exclude provincial voices from constitutional decision-making only deepens alienation and fuels the perception of central domination — the very sentiment that federalism was designed to overcome.
Equally important is the idea of a referendum. The Constitution itself allows for this mechanism, and there is no harm in considering it as an option for questions of national significance. When amendments touch the foundational structure of the state — as the 27th Amendment reportedly does — the people have a right to be directly consulted. A referendum, combined with public hearings and parliamentary debate, could lend legitimacy to any constitutional change and ensure it reflects the will of the people rather than the preferences of political elites.
The Constitution is not merely a legal document; it is a living contract between the state and its citizens. Amending it is not the same as passing an ordinary bill. It reshapes institutions, redistributes powers, and alters the political balance of the country. Such transformations require time — time for reflection, consultation, and public participation. Rushing a constitutional amendment through parliament without engaging civil society, academia, media, and provincial governments would be an act of political expediency, not democratic responsibility.
National debate is not a procedural hurdle — it is the essence of constitutional legitimacy. A healthy federation thrives on dialogue among its constituent units. When laws change quietly in closed rooms, without public understanding or consent, their legitimacy is questioned even before their implementation. The framers of Pakistan’s Constitution envisioned a participatory democracy — one that draws strength from inclusion, not imposition.
Follow Republic Policy on Facebook
Therefore, before proceeding with the 27th Amendment, Pakistan’s leadership should open the process to wider engagement. Provincial assemblies should be invited to hold simultaneous debates. Universities and think tanks should host forums on the implications of the proposed changes. Media should facilitate informed public discussion rather than partisan commentary. The government could even form a constitutional review commission — including jurists, provincial representatives, and scholars — to examine the amendment in light of federal principles and constitutional harmony.
Constitutional continuity depends on consensus, not coercion. If the state intends to revise the federal balance, redefine institutions, or alter judicial or executive powers, such steps must be supported by broad-based national agreement. Anything less would risk destabilising the delicate equilibrium that holds the federation together.
Follow Republic Policy on TikTok
Pakistan’s constitutional journey has often been marked by haste — amendments introduced without adequate consultation, repealed under pressure, or manipulated to suit short-term political goals. That cycle must end. The Constitution should evolve through deliberation, not reaction. A nation that debates its future openly strengthens its democracy; a nation that changes its foundation in silence weakens it.
Ultimately, the 27th Amendment — or any amendment that affects the federal structure — must be backed by the people’s will. It must emerge from dialogue, not decree. The Constitution is the architecture of the state and the moral compass of society. Altering it demands more than numbers in parliament; it requires the conviction that every voice, every province, and every citizen has been heard.
