A system to govern the government, constitutions are mostly seen as devices for maintaining limited governments with checks on the power of the executive. Often taken for granted, most societies have in built written or unwritten constitutions. But the question then arises that can we blindly trust a document of rules to actually "work"?
Pakistan is a witness to the continuous reshaping and moulding of this document as deemed fit by powerful elitists when they the had the opportunity to do so. The 1962 constitution institutionalized military intervention in politics,the 1973 one placed power in the hands of the prime-minister.
The judiciary, protectors of the constitution and theoretically unbiased and unpoliticized, has time and again found it necessary to accommodate political interests in constitutional changes under the weight of political pressures. Such inappropriate actions undermine the entire purpose of constitutional governance.How then, can a constitution still be deemed fit to keep adequate checks and balances when it has been amended according to the vested interests of various individuals?
Not only that, creation of PCOs gives clear rights to suspend the constitution in cases of declaration of emergency in the name of national security under radical circumstances and bestows certain individuals with the right to completely disregard the constitution. As was the case in Musharraf's time when he gave himself the power to run the country as he willed with a temporary constitutional amendment that not only prevented courts from taking any action against him but also targeted those that opposed, Thus, creating a virtually unopposed absolute monarchy that gave total control in the hands of the chief executive. If the constitution is so weak that such coups can easily override and disregard it, isn't it left purposeless?
Constitutional amendments and violations will continuously occur till at least political leaders are forced to behave and respect the law or till the military is put in its place of overseeing national security instead of intervening in governing. What we need is a stronger set of laws or checks put in place to guard the document that guards the gaurds.
2 comments:
Risha - Your concluding point about a 'guard' for the constitution is very intriguing. Often the judiciary, more specifically the constitutional courts are considered to be the protectors of the constitution. However, as you mentioned the judiciary in the past has failed to live up to its theoretical characteristics. Would legislating more laws regarding this will act as a guard or will making the judiciary more autonomous and objective help the cause?
Well what can we do to get the constitution to be more respected? How can we even respect the constitution if it is so easily amended, as can be seen with the 21st amendment? It has been argued by some that the 21st amendment is a "soft-coup" by the military, which effectively brings the military into the domain of the heretofore (relatively) independent judiciary. If the constitution can be changed at the whims of the military, is it even worth getting people to abide by it?
Post a Comment