Tariq Mahmood Awan
There are many forms of government in the world, and most of them work well in the countries where they exist. China follows its own version of socialism, and it works because the written system and the applied system are the same. Russia today is an authoritarian state, and whether one agrees with it or not, the written structure and the real structure match each other. The monarchies of the Middle East operate within a clear and defined model, and their societies accept it because nothing is hidden. Western countries use different types of democracy, some presidential and some parliamentary, but they function because the laws and the practices support each other. Even countries that follow constitutional authoritarian systems, like Iran & others , have a clear framework. Their constitutions say one thing, and their governments follow that thing.
The point is simple. A government system succeeds not because it is democratic or authoritarian. It succeeds because there is consistency between what is written on paper and what is practiced on the ground. In other words, the de jure and the de facto are the same. When the written law and the real behaviour match, a state becomes predictable, stable, and functional. But when the two are different, confusion appears. Confusion turns into intellectual hypocrisy. And this destroys the socio-political fabric.
Pakistan suffers from this problem. Our main issue is not that we have a weak democracy or a strong establishment. Our main issue is that the written system and the applied system are not the same. The Constitution says Pakistan is a federation, but in real life the system runs like a centralised unit. The Constitution says Pakistan is a republic, but in practice the behaviour of power is closer to an authoritarian or controlled structure. There are strong fundamental rights written in the Constitution, but ordinary people cannot use them in their daily lives. Courts take years to enforce them, and institutions interpret them selectively.
This gap between paper and reality has created a culture of intellectual dishonesty. People in power know what the Constitution says. They also know how things actually work. But they pretend that both are the same. That pretence is the foundation of Pakistan’s political crisis. When a country says one thing and does another, it stops moving forward. It becomes hollow from inside, and eventually some parts of the state stop functioning altogether.
There are many examples of this de jure and de facto difference in Pakistan. The Constitution clearly says that no law can be made against the injunctions of Islam. Yet some family laws are in open conflict with Islamic principles, whether one agrees with those principles or not. The issue is not the quality of these laws. The issue is that the constitutional promise and the practical laws do not match. When a country declares that Islam is the supreme source of legislation, but then frames laws that contradict it, it creates another layer of hypocrisy. Again, this is not about religious debate. This is about intellectual honesty. If the state wants Islamic clauses, then it must apply them honestly. If it does not want them, then it must change the Constitution openly. But Pakistan keeps both positions at the same time, and then pretends nothing is wrong.
Another example is the judicial system. De jure, the judiciary is independent. De facto, its independence changes with political winds. Judges are influenced by pressure of institutions, public mood, and behind-the-scenes negotiations. Again, the problem is not whether the judiciary is strong or weak. The problem is that the written structure promises one thing and the real behaviour delivers another.
The same conflict is present in civil services. On paper, the civil service is supposed to serve the public and follow merit. But in practice, postings, transfers, and promotions often depend on personal loyalties, political connections, or invisible pressures. De jure, an officer should work according to law. De facto, the officer works according to signals. The signal is more powerful than the law. This makes the entire administrative system weak.
Local government is another area. The Constitution calls for strong local government. But in practice, elections are delayed for years, and local bodies are dissolved whenever the provincial government feels uncomfortable. De jure, local government is compulsory. De facto, local government is optional.
The Constitution says provinces have autonomy after the eighteenth amendment. But federal ministries and federal officers continue to intervene in provincial matters. De jure, Pakistan is a federation. De facto, Pakistan behaves like a centralised state with a few power centres controlling everything.
Even political representation shows this difference. De jure, the people elect their leaders. De facto, the real power often lies somewhere else. Parties exist, but they operate in a space where the boundary between civilian authority and non-civilian authority is blurred. This creates permanent instability, because no political system can work when there are two parallel authorities, one written and one real.
All these contradictions create one big problem. Pakistan cannot progress as long as it lives in two worlds. A state cannot have one structure on paper and another structure in practice, and then expect development. Real growth needs clarity. Real stability needs honesty. Real reform needs consistency.
This is why economic plans fail. This is why political reforms fail. This is why administrative changes fail. They fail because they are applied in a system where real power does not match written power. Policies cannot work when the ground reality is opposite to the book reality.
At some point, the form of government becomes less important than the honesty of the system. Democracy may be the best form of government, but even democracy becomes meaningless if the process is controlled. A dictatorship may be stable in some countries, but it is stable only because it is written, accepted, and practiced as such. If a country wants a strong centralised system, it must write it openly and follow it consistently. If a country wants a federal democracy, it must practice that democracy honestly.
Pakistan must choose one clear system. It cannot keep living in a hybrid structure where the Constitution says one thing and institutions do another. Even if Pakistan, hypothetically, wanted a military system, it would still be better to declare it openly, write it in the Constitution, and follow it honestly. The worst system with honesty is better than the best system with hypocrisy.
Until the de jure and the de facto become the same, Pakistan will remain stuck. Intellectual dishonesty will keep producing political instability. Confusion will keep weakening the state. And progress will remain a dream.
Pakistan must correct this mismatch. It must bring honesty between the written law and the real application. This is the only path to stability, growth, and a genuine future.
