Pakistan’s constitutional framework is built on principles of democracy, accountability, and the rule of law. However, the 26th Constitutional Amendment has turned that framework into a funhouse mirror, reflecting a distorted image of where power is centralised and checks and balances are treated as optional. By passing this amendment, the ruling coalition has not only weakened judicial independence but also undermined the checks and balances that prevent any one branch of government from becoming a tyrant.
Critics from various quarters, including opposition parties, legal experts, and international observers like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have sounded the alarm. Yet, in a stunning display of political theatre, the ruling coalition has celebrated the amendment, revealing a mindset typical of dynastic politics in Pakistan.
At the heart of the 26th Constitutional Amendment is a glaring threat to judicial independence. The amendment transfers key powers regarding judicial appointments and oversight to parliament, effectively transforming the judiciary into a puppet show where the political elite pulls the strings. This shift consolidates power, raising questions about whether judges will soon need a script approved by the ruling party.
Opposition leaders have been quick to condemn the amendment. Former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan declared, "This amendment is a blatant attempt to subvert democracy and control the judiciary." Legal experts have joined the chorus of concern, warning that the erosion of judicial independence jeopardises the very fabric of democracy in Pakistan. The ICJ’s warnings add an international flair as if the world is peeking through a window at the unfolding circus, shaking its head in disbelief.
In the face of mounting criticism, the ruling coalition has framed the amendment as a vital reform to restore parliamentary supremacy. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif proclaimed, "This amendment is a step toward enhancing the accountability and efficiency of our judiciary." One might wonder if “efficiency” now includes a stopwatch for how quickly judges can be told what to decide. Such statements reveal a disconnect between the ruling party’s narrative and the fundamental principles of democracy, where an independent judiciary is supposed to act as a fearless guardian of the law—not a compliant lapdog.
The ruling coalition has patted itself on the back for the passage of the amendment, celebrating it as a monumental victory for democracy and parliamentary authority. The coalition’s leaders have hailed the amendment as a major accomplishment, confidently asserting their commitment to “reforming” the judiciary—presumably so it can better serve their political interests.
The leaders’ insistence on celebrating this amendment shows their remarkable ability to ignore the real issues at hand as if they are performing a magic trick where the truth simply vanishes
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a key player in the coalition, proclaimed, "We are reclaiming the authority of parliament to ensure that justice is delivered efficiently and effectively." One can’t help but chuckle at the notion of “efficiency” when it’s clear that the ruling party has confused political expediency with justice. The leaders’ insistence on celebrating this amendment shows their remarkable ability to ignore the real issues at hand as if they are performing a magic trick where the truth simply vanishes.
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, another influential figure in the coalition and considered by most to be the lynchpin of the amendment, echoed similar sentiments, stating, "This is a historic moment for our democracy, as we reinforce the role of elected representatives in governance." This rhetoric sounds grand, but one might wonder if the “historic moment” is merely a rebranding of a long-standing tradition of power consolidation dressed up as democratic reform. The ruling elite’s tendency to frame their actions as progressive while stripping away checks and balances is a classic case of political irony that would make even the most seasoned satirist raise an eyebrow.
The behaviour of the ruling coalition regarding the 26th Constitutional Amendment reflects a mindset deeply entrenched in dynastic politics, where power is concentrated among a select few families and their political allies. This mentality prioritises maintaining power over democratic ideals of accountability and transparency. The coalition’s self-congratulatory tone following the amendment’s passage suggests an almost comical belief that their political legitimacy springs from familial lineage rather than the electorate’s will.
This approach is particularly concerning for democracy, as it cultivates an environment where dissent and criticism are often minimised. The ruling coalition’s framing of the amendment as a necessary measure for progress marginalises opposing voices and perpetuates the political status quo. Their belief that party loyalty equates to national interest further complicates matters, as decisions increasingly focus on securing the ruling elite’s power instead of serving the public.
Moreover, the emphasis on restoring parliamentary sovereignty, while ignoring the need for judicial independence, reflects a troubling preference for institutional power over democratic principles. The leaders’ constant calls for unity and cooperation within the coalition serve to obscure the potential risks posed by the amendment, as dissenting opinions are often dismissed faster than a magician’s assistant vanishing from a stage.
As concerns continue to grow regarding the amendment’s implications, it becomes increasingly evident that the ruling coalition’s actions are at odds with the spirit of the Constitution. Their push for greater control over the judiciary not only jeopardises the rule of law but also raises serious questions about the future of democracy in Pakistan. Upholding judicial independence is essential for maintaining the integrity of democratic processes, and the calls for accountability and reform must not be overlooked.
Ultimately, the strength of Pakistan’s democratic institutions will depend on the leadership’s ability to recognise and uphold the principles of justice, accountability, and independence that are vital to a functioning democracy. After all, if the ruling elite continues to treat constitutional governance like a game of musical chairs—where only they get to sit down—there may soon be no one left standing to uphold the rule of law.