Barrister Naveed Qazi
Pakistan’s constitutional journey remains one of its most unresolved national dilemmas. In seventy-six years, the country has adopted three constitutions — 1956, 1962, and the current 1973 Constitution — yet continues to suffer from political instability and institutional imbalance. The 1973 Constitution, though considered a historic consensus document, has undergone 27 amendments, but still, no one seems satisfied. This constant tinkering with the supreme law reflects a deeper structural failure: when the constitution itself is weakened in every era, how can the state ever become stable?
The tragedy of Pakistan’s constitutional politics lies not in the number of amendments but in their intent. Every government and institution has sought to reshape the constitution for convenience rather than continuity. Where it was meant to guarantee equality, justice, and stability, it has instead been used to secure power, extend tenures, and silence opposition. From the executive’s overreach to judicial activism and military interventions, every institution has tried to redefine constitutional supremacy according to its own interests.
The spirit of the 1973 Constitution was rooted in federalism, parliamentary democracy, and civil liberties. Yet, over the years, these principles have been diluted. Military regimes suspended it, civilian governments manipulated it, and political elites amended it for survival. Instead of strengthening the federation, each constitutional experiment has deepened the divide between provinces and the centre, and between law and practice. The 18th Amendment — a rare moment of federal consensus — promised devolution and autonomy, but its implementation remains incomplete and contested.
The problem is not the constitution itself; it is the mindset that sees it as an obstacle rather than a guide. The frequent amendments show an addiction to short-term fixes instead of long-term reform. Constitutionalism requires patience, dialogue, and respect for institutional boundaries. But Pakistan’s ruling elites prefer expediency — rewriting laws when convenient and ignoring them when not. As a result, no political party or institution truly stands for constitutional supremacy; all stand for constitutional utility.
This pattern has weakened governance and public trust. When citizens see laws applied selectively, they lose faith in both democracy and justice. When the constitution is altered to accommodate personalities rather than principles, the very idea of a constitutional state is eroded. The survival of Pakistan’s democracy depends on restoring the sanctity of the constitution — not as a weapon, but as a covenant among equals.
The real reform lies not in drafting a fourth constitution or adding a 28th amendment, but in implementing what already exists with honesty. The Constitution of 1973 remains Pakistan’s strongest framework for democratic continuity. Its words are not at fault; its misuse is. If every government truly commits to respecting constitutional limits, empowering parliament, and strengthening the rule of law, Pakistan can still reclaim the vision of constitutional equality.
Until that happens, constitutional instability will remain Pakistan’s biggest political tragedy — a republic that keeps rewriting its rules yet never learns to play by them.
