The constitution of a state serves the primary purpose of
providing a state with a basic law, upon which all other laws are
based. This is done by creating a government structure, whilst
possessing provisions that allow keeping the government ion check and
the people protected.
In Pakistan, however, the constitution introduced on August 14,
1973 and amended several times later on is criticized on several
grounds. The main criticism of the constitution's framework is about
the great degree of ideological details present in it. It is observed
that the constitution reflects the ideology behind the Pakistan
movement to an extent that it overpowers the adaptability required to
make it a practicable document.
The democratic aspect of the constitution of Pakistan has also
been subject to mass debate. The denial of many rights to non-Muslim
Pakistanis is reflected in the constitution, defining the state as
one born out of an Islamic separatist ideology. Certain things that
are stated, like the definition of a Muslim and the delegitimisation
of the Ahmadis, along with the clause ofnon-Muslims not being able be
elected as PM or president are what pave the way for discrimination
and religious intolerance.
Due to these and several other flaws, like the discrimination
faced by regions such as Fata and Gilgit-Baltistan and the question
of flawed tax structures, the constitution of Pakistan to this day
remains subject to widespread criticism. I believe that it is
important to understand and reform the constitution keeping present
day Pakistan in view, realising that there is no room in a
multinational society such as Pakistan for a dominant religious
ideology to overarch that of the entire populations.
1 comment:
According to the main issue of our President and Prime Minister to be Muslim, I shall like to make people think about the perspective that Pakistan is a democratic state and democracy is the rule of majority. More than 90 percent of population of Pakistan is Muslim and so according to the democracy the president and prime minister should be Muslim. Lets take the example of India, which is a Hindu majority. Can anyone think of their prime minister to be a MUSLIM, irrespective of the fact that they had a Muslim president but is there any authority of a president? We can not argue that a majority country can be presided by a minority person. It will lead to mass chaos. If we remove the condition of being a Muslim, do you think that it will work in a Muslim majority country?
Post a Comment