Pakistan's constitutional journey has been a tumultuous narrative, marked by periods of democratic aspiration repeatedly punctuated by military interventions. However, despite these profound disruptions, the Constitution, particularly the 1973 Constitution, has demonstrated remarkable resilience, surviving abrogations, suspensions, and extensive amendments. This endurance is not merely a passive phenomenon but a testament to a complex interplay of judicial interpretation, the persistent struggles of political actors, the unwavering demand for democratic governance from civil society, and the Constitution's own capacity for adaptation. Indeed it has remained a central, albeit often contested, document defining state structure and citizen rights, serving as a persistent benchmark against which deviations are measured and a framework to which the nation recurrently seeks to return.
Follow Cssprepforum WhatsApp Channel: Pakistan’s Largest CSS, PMS Prep Community updated
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.
To begin with, the history of Pakistan is significantly characterized by four overt military coups that dislodged civilian governments and placed the Constitution in abeyance. The first was under General Ayub Khan in 1958, leading to the abrogation of the 1956 Constitution and the imposition of his own in 1962. Subsequently, General Yahya Khan imposed martial law in 1969, abrogating Ayub's constitution. Most significantly, the longest and perhaps most transformative military rule was under General Zia-ul-Haq, who overthrew Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government in 1977 and held the 1973 Constitution in abeyance for eight years, significantly altering its character through controversial amendments before its partial restoration. Finally, General Pervez Musharraf's coup in 1999 once again suspended the Constitution. In each case these interventions saw the issuance of instruments like the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), compelling judges to take fresh oaths and effectively subordinating the judiciary. Ultimately, the significance of the Constitution's survival, even in a battered form, lies in its symbolic representation of the nation's democratic aspirations and its role as an indispensable legal framework, however imperfectly applied.
Key Dimensions of Constitutional Endurance
The Judiciary's Ambivalent Role Guardian and Enabler
Historically, judiciary in Pakistan has played a profoundly complex and often contradictory role in the saga of constitutional survival. On one hand, it has, at critical junctures, invoked the controversial "Doctrine of Necessity" to provide legal sanction to military takeovers, thereby legitimizing extra-constitutional regimes. Notably, the Nusrat Bhutto case (1977), which validated General Zia-ul-Haq's coup, is a prime example of the judiciary acquiescing to military power under the rationale of state necessity. This tendency to legitimize coups initially weakened the sanctity of the Constitution. However, the judiciary has also, at other times, attempted to act as a bulwark for constitutionalism. For instance, the landmark Asma Jilani case (1972) declared General Yahya Khan's martial law a usurpation, departing from earlier precedents. More recently, the judiciary played a pivotal role during and after the Lawyers' Movement (2007-2009), which ultimately led to the restoration of judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who had been dismissed by General Musharraf. This period saw the Supreme Court take a more assertive stance, voiding actions taken under Musharraf's emergency rule and even paving the way for his eventual impeachment proceedings. Ultimately, this judicial activism, though sometimes criticized for overreach, has been instrumental in navigating transitions back to constitutional order, demonstrating that while the judiciary can be swayed by political realities, it also retains the institutional memory and legal tools to reassert constitutional supremacy when conditions permit.
Political Resilience and Adaptation
Moreover, political parties and civilian leadership, despite facing suppression, co-option, and fragmentation under military regimes, have consistently demonstrated a resilient commitment to restoring constitutional democracy. Throughout the history of Pakistan, during periods of authoritarian rule, political forces have often managed to regroup and forge alliances to challenge military dominance and advocate for the reinstatement of the Constitution. For example, the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) emerged as a significant opposition alliance against General Zia-ul-Haq's regime in the 1980s, campaigning for the end of martial law and the restoration of the 1973 Constitution. Similarly, the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) was formed against General Pervez Musharraf. While military rulers have frequently amended the Constitution to consolidate their power, such as General Zia’s insertion of the Eighth Amendment which granted the President discretionary powers to dissolve parliament, or General Musharraf's Seventeenth Amendment which validated his actions, subsequent civilian governments have painstakingly worked to reverse these changes. Most notably, the Eighteenth Amendment (2010) stands as a monumental achievement in this regard, stripping the presidency of the power to unilaterally dissolve parliament and restoring a more parliamentary character to the Constitution, thereby undoing decades of autocratic accretion. Consequently, this persistent, cyclical effort by political actors to reclaim and reshape the constitutional framework underscores its enduring importance as the legitimate basis for governance.
Civil Society and Public Aspiration for Democracy
Equally important, the endurance of Pakistan's Constitution cannot be fully understood without acknowledging the crucial role played by civil society and the persistent public yearning for democratic governance and fundamental rights. Across decades, various segments of society, including lawyers, journalists, human rights activists, students, and labor unions, have repeatedly mobilized against military rule and advocated for the supremacy of the Constitution. Most strikingly, te most potent demonstration of this was the Lawyers' Movement of 2007-2009, which began as a protest against General Musharraf's dismissal of the Chief Justice and burgeoned into a nationwide mass movement demanding judicial independence and the rule of law. This movement significantly eroded the legitimacy of military rule and was a key catalyst in the transition back to a democratic setup. Similarly, the media, despite facing censorship and restrictions, has often strived to provide space for dissenting voices and highlight constitutional violations, particularly during periods of relative relaxation in control. Critically, this underlying democratic aspiration within significant sections of the populace creates a normative pressure that military regimes find increasingly difficult to ignore indefinitely, thus providing a fertile ground for the re-emergence of constitutional politics. In essence, the Constitution, in this context, serves as a potent symbol of citizens' rights and democratic entitlements.
Constitutional Amendments: The Double Edged Sword
Fundamentally, the mechanism of constitutional amendment has paradoxically been both a tool for undermining and for preserving the Constitution in Pakistan. Historically, military rulers have consistently resorted to amending the Constitution to legitimize their coups, indemnify their actions, and tailor the governing framework to their preferences, often concentrating power in the office of the President (held by the military ruler) at the expense of the Prime Minister and Parliament. General Zia-ul-Haq's introduction of Article 58(2)(b) through the Eighth Amendment, which allowed the President to dissolve the National Assembly, fundamentally altered the parliamentary system envisioned in the original 1973 Constitution. Similarly, General Musharraf similarly used the Seventeenth Amendment to validate his legal framework order and constitutional changes. However, this very process of amendment has also been utilized by democratically elected parliaments to roll back autocratic changes and strengthen democratic institutions. For instance, the Thirteenth Amendment (1997) repealed Article 58(2)(b), though it was later revived by Musharraf, only to be definitively removed by the comprehensive Eighteenth Amendment (2010). This latter amendment also introduced provisions for provincial autonomy and renamed the North-West Frontier Province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, reflecting a broader consensus. Thus, while amendments by military regimes have scarred the Constitution, the inherent flexibility of the amendment process has allowed democratic forces to "reclaim" and "repair" the document, ensuring its continued relevance and survival, albeit as an evolving text.
Join Sir Kazim’s Extensive CSS/PMS English Course Starting July 7
Sir Kazim's CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis course starts July 7 at 8 p.m. Only 60 seats; apply early! Submit a 200-word paragraph to secure your spot. Fee: Rs. 15,000/month.
At its core, the survival of Pakistan's Constitution through recurrent military interventions has been a pyrrhic victory in many respects. Over time each, cycle of abrogation or suspension and subsequent restoration has inflicted deep wounds on the nation's democratic fabric and the sanctity of its fundamental law. Disturbingly, the reliance on judicial doctrines of necessity, the forced amendments under duress, and the periods of constitutional limbo have cumulatively eroded public trust in state institutions and normalized extra-constitutional measures. This cyclical pattern underscores persistent systemic weaknesses, particularly the enduring imbalance in civil-military relations and the fragility of nascent democratic institutions. Ultimately, while the document itself endures, its spirit and consistent application have often been compromised, leading to a governance culture where constitutionalism is more an aspiration than a consistently upheld practice.
In final analysis, Pakistan's Constitution, particularly the 1973 iteration, has indeed demonstrated remarkable tenacity, surviving multiple periods of direct military rule and extra-constitutional governance. However, this resilience is a multifaceted phenomenon, attributable to the judiciary's evolving role, the persistent efforts of political parties, the unwavering aspirations of civil society for democratic rule, and the Constitution’s own adaptability through amendments. Yet crucially, its survival has often come at the cost of its integrity, with its provisions frequently subverted or selectively applied. Moreover, the true challenge for Pakistan lies not merely in ensuring the Constitution's continued existence on paper but in fostering an environment where its principles are robustly implemented, its supremacy is unequivocally respected by all state institutions, and democratic norms are deeply entrenched. Therefore, true constitutionalism demands an unwavering commitment to the rule of law, beyond the mere presence of a constitutional document, requiring vigilance from the citizenry and a fundamental recalibration of power dynamics within the state.
