THE Supreme Court of Pakistan dashed hopes of some circles that were working towards the goal of introducing a presidential form of government in the country and that too using the shoulder of the apex court.
The court, on Monday, dismissed all constitutional petitions, seeking holding of a referendum for establishment of a presidential system saying that deciding about the political system in the country was not the job of the court.
The three-member bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, ruled that there was no clause in the Constitution which mandates it to issue directions to the Prime Minister for holding a referendum for the purpose.
Irrespective of their high sounded title, the so-called constitutional petitions fell in the category of frivolous litigation as there was no legal or constitutional ground to knock the door of the Supreme Court for realization of this politically motivated objective of razing to the ground one of the main pillars of 1973 Constitution that clearly stipulates parliamentary form of the government in the country.
Regrettably, the petitioners included the one who proudly claims to be one of the framers of the Constitution but tried to move the court in an apparent attempt to bulldoze a document that represented national consensus.
The apex court has rightly observed that it was not its job to replace the political system and that political moves should be initiated at the right forum i.e. Parliament.
Otherwise too, it is a reality that the country has suffered hugely due to frequent experiments made during different periods.
We had a presidential form of government during which the country lost its former eastern wing and, similarly, we harmed the well-established system of district administration and local government in the name of devolution of powers and the country is still witnessing the negative consequences.
An analysis of the political and constitutional history of the country would show that there is nothing wrong neither with the presidential nor with the parliamentary form of government.
It is individuals’ lust to grab power and stick to it through whatever means that is at the heart of the problems of the country.
There would be continuity and stability if the rule of the law and the supremacy of the Constitution are upheld by all and all institutions perform their duties and responsibilities strictly within the parameters of the Constitution.
