Syed Shehryar Raza Zaidi
IN the land of pure intentions there is one national sport that rivals cricket, the art of a constitutional amendment. Every few months, while citizens navigate inflation, electricity bills and traffic jams, the talk of yet another amendment to the Constitution of this great country conveniently crops up, almost startling those who remain wary of the shrinking political landscape. The latest in this long-running constitutional jam is the proposed 27th Amendment. The Constitution, in theory, is supposed to be the grundnorm, the mother of all laws, the document that keeps the powerful honest and the citizen sovereign. However, of late, our Constitution appears less like a revered foundational text and more like a word document perpetually open for editing, free for one and all. From the Government’s stand point, it makes all the more sense, what’s the point of being in government if you can’t give the Constitution a little cosmetic surgery every now and then?
Of course, each proposed amendment is dressed in noble language: “for better governance,” “to ensure stability,” “to align with modern realities”. Yet, beneath the flowery prose lies the same old story, centralization of authority, the subtle clipping of institutional wings and the casual rearranging of power equations on the falsified premise that these will ensure the survival of the government of the day. At this point, given the back forth expected to predate the already foregone constitutional amendment, one is tempted to suggest a simpler approach. Why not just do a single, all-encompassing amendment and be done with it? Let’s call it the “Do Whatever You Want” Amendment. It could be placed immediately prior to the “Fundamental Rights” and read something like this:
“Notwithstanding anything contained anywhere in this Constitution, the Government shall be empowered to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, whoever it wants. Civil liberties, judicial independence, freedom of the press and other such outdated notions shall henceforth be considered optional and may be referenced only in history textbooks, in such mode and manner as the Government of the day may notify in the official Gazette.” With this amendment, there will be no more ambiguity. No need to keep revising articles or forming parliamentary committees. Just one clean sweep, a Constitutional power of attorney to the ruling elite, signed, sealed and delivered. The citizens can finally rest easy, knowing that the State’s love for “reform” has found permanent expression.
The Constitution we are told is a living document. And what is life, in our national context, if not constant evolution? One day, the judiciary is independent; the next, it’s “harmonized.” One day, the provinces have autonomy; the next, “coordinated governance” demands a little federal babysitting. One day, the Parliament is supreme; the next, an executive’s decrees reign supreme. An expression of the great national theatre of flexibility. It’s ironic that in a country so obsessed with rewriting the Constitution, we’ve never managed to write in the most basic democratic safeguard: that those who govern us must do so with a clear, uncontested mandate from the people. Every other Article of the Constitution has been negotiated, rewritten or “harmonized” to death, except the one Article that could actually restore the people’s faith in the system.
Perhaps we could take inspiration from across the ocean and look at our most treasured Donald. The United States, with all its flaws, managed to prove something remarkable in recent years. Despite President Trump’s relentless objections, late-night rants the institutions held firm. Votes were counted, recounted and certified, the system did not bend and Zohran Mamdani won took office as NYC’s youngest mayor. What won was the process, not personalities, not power brokers. That, more than anything, is what constitutional stability looks like. Imagine that kind of resilience here. Imagine an election whose outcome no one can question because the process itself is beyond reproach. Imagine an Election Commission that answers only to the law, not to political masters. Imagine courts that protect the vote instead of validating its theft. That would be the true evolution of our Constitution — not another amendment shifting commas between Articles, but a moral modification which restores the soul of our Constitution.
But such amendment that would require courage, courage which rarely forms the basis of our political amendments. Maybe we should just pass that final amendment, the one that officially recognizes what we already know, that the powers that be should be free to do whatever they so please and the citizens may continue applauding them from the sidelines. Until, of course, election season arrives and we are told, once again, that “this time will be different.” Yet one lives in hope. Because if an amendment must be made, let it be the one that restores the ballot, not the bayonet, as the source of all power. Until then, the Amendment Factory remains open for business and business, as always, is booming.
—The writer, based in Islamabad, is a lawyer.
