Finally, General Musharraf is on the record unashamedly telling the media on camera that the Constitution is no holy document and can be shredded at will and tossed into the rubbish bin. Dictators will be dictators. Their power hinges on trampling on the Constitution. However, when they are not in direct control of the government, they require facilitators to do the job of disrespecting the country's Constitution. In this regard, some of the country's purportedly brightest legal brains fell over one another in not hesitating to craft and modify the country's sacred document.
However, military rulers weren't the only ones who attempted to amend the Constitution to suit their needs. It's interesting to note that democratically elected officials also attempted to change the Constitution to solidify their political influence. For instance, despite Mujeeb-ur-Rehman having gained a majority of the vote in the 1970 elections, Bhutto had declared that without his party's cooperation and consideration, no Constitution could be framed, nor could any government in the center be run.
In addition, the Eighth Amendment was successfully repealed by the 13th Amendment during Nawaz Sharif's second term in office. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was also enacted by Nawaz which put an end to horse-trading, along with changing the political loyalties of parliamentarians. However, the then leader of the opposition Aitzaz Ahsan objected to the power of disqualification of an elected member being given to the party head. We have come to understand this criticism while observing the current controversy in the case of electing the Punjab chief minister on 22 July 2022, between the PML-Q members and its President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.M oreover, Nawaz Sharif's attempt to enact the 15th Amendment and hope to declare himself Amir-ul-Momineen was unsuccessful because he was unable to secure a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Therefore, these incidents demonstrated the mindset of our political leaders, who seek to amass total, unquestionable power.
Now, the ongoing political conflict between the PDM and the PTI has taken on a new, more deadly dimension. It has pushed power seeking elites to the point where they are busy manufacturing their narratives, while gambling with the Constitution once again, as well as the economy and security of the country. This power gambit is now pitting state institutions against one another, plunging some into contempt, while throwing practically all of them into the midst of political wrangling. This is causing national upheaval. Several recent developments attest to this. The ongoing middle is gradually eroding any faith or optimism that the people still have in the state and its institutions. However, whenever the administration faces a political or constitutional threat, it convenes National Security Committee sessions. Such a practice risks exacerbating the political atmosphere rather than addressing national security concerns.
The foundation of this argument is the government coalition's clear unwillingness to organize provincial elections within the legally mandated 90-day term. This is clear from the action of PDM lead government, which has not met the deadline for the government to transfer money, under a recent Supreme Court decision, regarding the Punjab Assembly elections on May 14. Furthermore, this pathetic situation between the PDM administration and Imran Khan's PTI has intensified the criticism of the role of the judiciary. Inability or unwillingness to resolve political disagreements on their own, the opposing parties take them to court, which is expected to operate as an arbitrator of politics rather than law. Then, if the rulings do not suit or benefit a certain side, the courts are chastised and accused of bias.
Certainly, Pakistan's current situation is primarily the result of discarding Constitutional frameworks. Respecting this framework would imply that all institutions act within their constitutional bounds; political parties and civilian administrators endure each other and find democratic, constitutional solutions to their disagreements rather than threatening to destabilize the system. The judiciary and military should remain neutral when it comes to matters of the Constitution. The reason is that in the current scenario, the nation is still facing trouble in moving forward, despite the completion of fifty years of our constitutional history. The democratic process has weakened significantly as a result of a careless and narcissistic struggle for power, generating concerns that the Constitution may yet again be hijacked. Therefore, we should uphold the Constitution, but our politicians and establishment have not a care in the world, and are focused instead instead prioritizing their narrow self-interest.