In every nation's journey toward consolidation and maturity, ideology functions as a guiding force. It binds people with a sense of purpose, inspires state institutions to act with clarity, and shapes collective ambitions. In the absence of a coherent ideological foundation, a state risks uncertainty and confusion, leading to internal frictions. Pakistan's situation, in this regard, has been marked by a continuous struggle to reconcile two seemingly divergent currents, Islamic orthodoxy and modern democratic values. These tensions have been aggravated by legal and constitutional choices that, while attempting to harmonize both currents, have often introduced ambiguity rather than clarity.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
The Objective Resolution passed in 1949 by the Constituent Assembly under the leadership of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was meant to lay the foundational vision for Pakistan. Later, the Resolution was integrated into Pakistan's legal framework as the preamble to the 1956 Constitution. However, its incorporation as a substantive part of the Constitution through Article 2A by the 8th Amendment in 1985 gave it an entirely new legal and political significance. By elevating it from a symbolic preamble to a binding clause, the state not only embedded Islamic ideals into constitutional fabric but also made them judicially enforceable. This dual intent to satisfy both religious and modernist aspirations created a complex scenario.
The Objective Resolution declared that sovereignty belongs to Allah and that state authority is to be exercised as a sacred trust by its representatives. While this phrasing resonates with Islamic principles, it also introduces a degree of ambiguity in a parliamentary democracy where sovereignty, in practice, is exercised by elected officials. The interpretation of sovereignty as divine rather than popular creates tension with representative governance. In Islamic political theory, leadership operates on the principle of Khilafat, where a caliph is selected based on virtue and piety, not merely popular mandate. Thus, reconciling the principle of divine sovereignty with democratic elections presents a structural dilemma.
Furthermore, the Resolution seeks to cater to modernist aspirations by upholding fundamental rights, the rule of law, and equality of citizens. It asserts that minorities shall be free to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures. Yet, even this commitment has come under scrutiny. The 1985 Revival of Constitution Order (RCO), which made Article 2A operational, significantly altered the language of the Objective Resolution. The removal of the word "freely" from the clause about minorities' rights signaled a subtle but meaningful shift in the ideological tone of the Constitution. While such an amendment may appear minor, its implications have been long-standing in minority-related legislation and judicial interpretations.
The judicial enforcement of Islamic provisions under Article 2A led to a shift in legislative orientation. The Federal Shariat Court and Council of Islamic Ideology began to play a more influential role in vetting laws for their compliance with Islamic injunctions. Over time, this expanded the religious element in governance beyond symbolic gestures to actual legal authority. For example, rulings on banking interest, Hudood Ordinances, and blasphemy laws have drawn legitimacy from the premise of Islamic supremacy embedded in the Objective Resolution. However, this has complicated the lawmaking process, especially in balancing international human rights norms with domestic religious sensibilities.
Politically, the Resolution's language and its constitutional status have been used selectively by different regimes. For military rulers such as General Zia ul Haq, it served as a tool to legitimize Islamization efforts and to shore up support among religious factions. For democratic governments, the Resolution provided a way to showcase Islamic credentials without committing to a theocratic model. This duality, however, has resulted in long-term ideological confusion, often pitting Islamists against secular modernists in contestations over the country's direction.
Culturally and socially, the implications have been even more profound. Education, media, and public discourse have increasingly reflected an ideological dualism. On one hand, curricula emphasize Islamic history and principles as central to national identity. On the other hand, aspirations for technological advancement, gender equality, and global integration push toward liberal values. These contradictory impulses often manifest in public debates, policy decisions, and even street protests.
Minority rights in particular have remained a focal point in the ideological tug-of-war. Despite constitutional assurances, minorities in Pakistan have frequently faced legal and social discrimination. The interpretation of Islamic supremacy has sometimes been employed to justify exclusionary practices. Blasphemy laws, originally introduced to protect religious sensitivities, have in some instances been misused against vulnerable communities. Critics argue that the legal sanctification of religious supremacy through Article 2A complicates the state's ability to act impartially.
It is also important to understand that ambiguity in governance leads not only to legal contradictions but to a weakening of democratic institutions. The ideological tension resulting from dual commitments has contributed to political instability and policy inconsistency. Successive governments have vacillated between religious appeasement and liberal reform, often at the cost of institutional coherence. This inconsistency is also reflected in foreign policy, educational policies, and internal security strategies.
Yet it must be acknowledged that the Objective Resolution was not designed with the intention to divide but to unite. It was an attempt to create a consensus document that could anchor a newly formed state struggling to define its identity. Its language was carefully crafted to reassure both religious groups and secular nationalists. However, over the decades, its implementation has skewed toward religious dominance, especially during periods of authoritarian rule. The failure to update or reinterpret the Resolution in line with evolving societal realities has turned it into a relic of contention rather than cohesion.
CSS Solved Past Papers from 2010 to Date by Miss Iqra Ali
Explore CSS solved past papers (2010 to Date) by Miss Iqra Ali, featuring detailed answers, examiner-focused content, and updated solutions. Perfect for aspirants preparing for CSS with accuracy and confidence.
This ambiguity has become more visible in legal circles where judicial interpretations of Article 2A have often leaned toward religious maximalism. Supreme Court judgments, particularly during periods of judicial activism, have occasionally referred to the Objective Resolution to validate Islam-based rulings. This not only blurs the line between law and religion but also makes legal consistency difficult. Moreover, the coexistence of secular and religious courts complicates access to justice and creates space for legal manipulation.
In conclusion, the Objective Resolution remains a pivotal yet contested feature of Pakistan’s constitutional framework. Its intent to integrate Islamic principles with democratic values was noble but has yielded a contradictory model that continues to perplex policymakers, jurists, and citizens alike. Instead of offering clarity, it has allowed successive governments and interest groups to interpret it to their advantage, often undermining national unity. The challenge, therefore, is not merely legal but conceptual. As Pakistan evolves, there is a pressing need to revisit foundational texts like the Objective Resolution through informed public discourse and legislative reflection. This does not mean abandoning ideological commitments but rather clarifying them in light of contemporary realities. Only then can Pakistan hope to resolve its identity crisis and forge a path rooted in both its ideological heritage and democratic aspirations.
