An unambiguous ideology offers the compass by which nations steer their destinies. For a state founded in the name of a distinct ideal, the clarity of that vision is not simply a theoretical matter, it becomes essential for effective governance, political unity, and institutional stability. Without ideological coherence, national consensus weakens, the machinery of governance loses purpose, and the moral and legal foundations of the state begin to deteriorate. In the case of Pakistan, the long-standing tension between religious ideals and modern constitutionalism has shaped the country's evolution, not as a resolved balance but as a constant point of friction.
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.
This ideological struggle is neither abstract nor confined to academic debate, it is rooted in concrete political developments and statecraft decisions. One of the earliest and most defining of these was the adoption of the Objective Resolution in March 1949, presented by Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. It declared that sovereignty belongs to Allah, that Muslims would be enabled to live in accordance with Islamic teachings, and that minorities would be protected. It simultaneously affirmed democracy, human rights, and minority freedoms. In these statements, it attempted to hold together two divergent frameworks of legitimacy, one derived from religious authority and the other from representative politics.
That duality, although politically convenient at the time, introduced contradictions that persist to this day. The wording of the Objective Resolution left interpretative space for both progressives and religious conservatives. It neither laid out a clear vision of a secular democratic republic nor committed the country to a complete theocracy. This deliberate vagueness may have allowed for initial political consensus, but over time it became a source of division. As governments changed and political actors sought ideological legitimacy, the Resolution's language proved elastic enough to be stretched in many directions, often at the cost of clarity and cohesion.
In 1985, General Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime incorporated the Objective Resolution into the operative part of the Constitution as Article 2A, giving it binding legal authority over other provisions. This move changed its status from a symbolic preamble to an enforceable standard by which legislation and governance could be measured. Zia’s regime, already pushing an extensive Islamization agenda, saw in the Resolution a legal cover to align national laws with orthodox interpretations of Sharia. The courts were now authorized to strike down parliamentary laws if they were found incompatible with Islamic injunctions, thereby shifting interpretive power from elected representatives to unelected judges and clerics.
The ideological imbalance created by this insertion grew more severe when the same regime modified language related to minority rights. The word "freely" was removed from the clause guaranteeing religious freedom, effectively altering the tone and legal understanding of protections offered to non-Muslim citizens. Although seemingly minor, this change reflected a shift in ideological priorities and sent a message that religious conformity was now closer to the state’s core identity than pluralism.
Supporters of the Resolution continue to argue that it provides the moral backbone of the state, one that reflects the aspirations of the Muslims who sought a separate homeland. They highlight its references to justice, moral accountability, and the sanctity of life and property as evidence of its compatibility with democratic norms. Yet, in practice, the state’s commitment to democracy has repeatedly been undermined by the weight given to religious supremacy. When the ultimate source of legitimacy is claimed to be divine rather than popular sovereignty, the institutional equilibrium of a democracy becomes difficult to sustain.
The contradiction between divine sovereignty and parliamentary authority has led to recurring legal and political confusion, particularly when courts are asked to decide whether laws passed by the legislature conform to Islamic principles. This has produced a form of dual accountability in which lawmakers are answerable not only to the electorate but also to religious interpretations that may lack consistency or consensus. The result is legal ambiguity, judicial overreach, and constrained legislative freedom.
Nowhere has this contradiction been more damaging than in the area of minority rights and freedom of expression. The constitutional commitment to Islamic supremacy has enabled laws such as the blasphemy statutes, which while framed as religious protections, have frequently been used to intimidate and target non-Muslims and dissenters. Legal redress in such cases is often hampered by fear, political pressure, and the courts' own limitations under Article 2A. The promise of equality under the law remains unfulfilled as long as one religious viewpoint holds privileged status in the legal framework.
The confusion is not limited to law and governance. It extends into education, media, foreign relations, and social policy. Educational curricula often emphasize religious identity over civic responsibility or critical thinking, while public discourse swings between religious nationalism and modern pragmatism. Political actors, rather than clarifying the national direction, frequently shift their positions depending on context, speaking one language in international forums and another to local constituencies. This oscillation has weakened national coherence and diluted the credibility of both governance and ideology.
It is important to recognize that religion has a meaningful role in Pakistan’s collective memory and national sentiment. The emotional and historical force behind the creation of Pakistan was rooted in the aspiration of Muslims for cultural and religious security. However, the Objective Resolution, while attempting to institutionalize this aspiration, inadvertently blurred the lines between spiritual values and legal structure. Unless the state clearly defines where moral guidance ends and legal authority begins, it will remain vulnerable to ideological fragmentation and policy paralysis.
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.
The way forward is not to discard the Objective Resolution but to reconsider its application in the light of Pakistan’s complex realities. After over seventy-five years, it is necessary to examine whether the Resolution still functions as a unifying framework or whether it now deepens social, legal, and institutional divisions. A democratic state must have an ideological foundation that reflects its principles and is resilient enough to support pluralism, equality, and rule of law. The coexistence of Islamic values with democratic governance is not impossible, but it requires intellectual clarity, legal precision, and political will. Without these, the foundational contradictions embedded in Pakistan’s constitutional identity will continue to stall its progress and fracture its society.
In its present form, the Objective Resolution risks being a vessel for competing and incompatible visions. It provides both religious conservatives and modernists with ammunition for their respective claims, but gives neither the clarity required for long-term stability. By refusing to address the contradictions head-on, Pakistan has allowed ideological ambiguity to corrode the integrity of its democratic institutions. If Pakistan is to move forward as a functional, democratic, and pluralistic state, it must confront this legacy—not with rhetoric, but with sober constitutional reflection.
