Editorial
In Pakistan, the concept of “political intervention” has often been deliberately portrayed as controversial, primarily by non-elected institutions. The aim of this narrative has been to suggest that the involvement of elected political leadership in state affairs is negative or unconstitutional. In reality, constitutional, democratic, and ethical principles all point to the opposite: the ultimate source of state authority lies with the people and their elected representatives.
The Constitution of Pakistan makes this clear. Article 2-A establishes that supreme sovereignty belongs to Allah, yet this sovereignty is delegated to the people of Pakistan as a trust. Citizens exercise this authority not directly, but through their elected representatives—a fundamental social contract between the state and its people. By extension, the legislature, whether the National Assembly or provincial assemblies, holds the core powers of the state. These assemblies, as bearers of public mandate, are the legitimate custodians of state authority. Therefore, the only valid basis for wielding power is electability, not appointment, seniority, or bureaucratic clout.
In a parliamentary system, the legislature transfers authority to the political executive—the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and their cabinets. Here, a critical distinction must be made: the executive refers strictly to elected political leaders. Bureaucrats are administrators, not policy-makers or holders of ultimate authority. Authority transferred to the cabinet should remain with political executives, exercised collectively under the principle of collective responsibility.
Yet, in practice, powers intended for ministers are often exercised by bureaucrats such as Chief Secretaries or department secretaries. Decisions on transfers, postings, and departmental management, which are constitutionally and politically the responsibility of ministers, are frequently delegated to non-elected officials. This undermines both constitutional authority and the fundamental principle of public representation. Authority cannot, in any circumstance, be transferred to unelected individuals.
The current practice of bureaucrats holding decisive administrative power reflects a lingering colonial mindset. During the British era, bureaucracy was empowered to govern, leaving citizens largely excluded from decision-making. Unfortunately, Pakistan inherited this model, which has impeded democratic evolution and weakened accountability. While elections in Pakistan may face their own challenges, constitutional authority must always reside with elected representatives, regardless of personal or political preferences.
Political intervention, therefore, should not be seen as negative—it is an essential and constitutional requirement. What is often mischaracterized as interference is, in fact, the proper exercise of public mandate. The real problem lies in the bureaucratic overreach that disrupts this balance. To maintain a functional and accountable state, bureaucrats must serve strictly as implementers of political executive decisions, not as decision-makers themselves.
Until this principle is firmly upheld, public authority, democracy, and constitutional governance will remain theoretical concepts rather than lived realities. Respecting the constitutional role of elected officials and restricting bureaucrats to advisory and execution roles is critical for Pakistan’s democratic consolidation. Political authority belongs to the people’s representatives, and only by enforcing this principle can the country ensure genuine democracy and effective governance.
