Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
How can the Constitution be changed?
Herald
Published about 4 hours ago
Illustration courtesy Dawn.com
Elected and dictatorial rulers both have exploited the need for constitutional changes chiefly to safeguard their own political interests by inserting anomalies such as indemnity for military coups and an executive presidency. Various experts have pointed fingers at the contradictions within the 1973 Constitution, such as the federal structure, law and order and the role of religion. As the Supreme Court grapples with the same issue while hearing petitions against the latest amendments, Herald invites commentators to suggest what they think needs to change in the Constitution to rid it of some, if not all, of these anomalies.
An inclusive policy
AFP/File
In view of the widespread confusion and misinterpretation leading to discrimination against minorities and certain Muslim sects in Pakistan, I strongly feel that the address of Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the constituent assembly on August 11, 1947, should be added to the Constitution as its preamble. This clearly declares that the state will treat all citizens equally and that it has nothing to do with the religion of its citizens — maintaining that it is a personal matter.
Another suggestion I would like to offer is for certain wordings in Clause 5 of the 1949 Objectives Resolution to be clarified, where it states: “Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.”
Here, I strongly recommended that “Quran and Sunnah” must have an addition of “as interpreted by their own sect”, or words to the effect, so as to make it practical and acceptable to all sects of Muslims in Pakistan.
By Fahmida Riaz, a poet, writer and translator
Saving the federation
Chief Minister Sindh Qaim Ali Shah with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at the PM House in Islamabad | APP
Although the 18th Amendment changed Articles 102 and 280 of the Constitution to strengthen the federalist structure of Pakistan, five years later, the continuous contestation between the centre and the provinces over distribution of authority, resources and policies continues.
We are currently in a transitional phase where ensuring Pakistan’s federalist nature is principally a work in progress. For example, major work on the Federal Legislative List II is needed to ensure that this is handled under the post-18th Amendment spirit of input and control of the provinces, within the existing Council of Common Interests structure. New coordination channels and changes to the old structures are required for this. Significantly within the context of hyper-politics and in the era of proliferation of information, this becomes a daunting task.
There are two routes available to Pakistan for embracing the federalist structure post 18th Amendment. Firstly, the transactional route whereby mechanisms, which are either predetermined or agreed upon during centre–provincial interaction, are set up for smooth transfer of authority, resources and policymaking. Secondly, a clear constitutional route whereby the centre is mandated to put in place – within a given time frame – implementation mechanisms for transfer of these powers, as broadly laid out in the 18th Amendment.
To prevent this transition phase from descending into a costly quagmire of chronic bickering, controversies and competition, the constitutional route is the required route.
By Nasim Zehra, a television anchor and columnist
Costly misconceptions
Herald cover February 1978
One area of the Constitution where a radical rethink is warranted is the identity and role of religion within the state. Since inception, Pakistan has struggled with defining itself. Is it an Islamic or secular state; can laws made by the will of men be set aside in the name of the Divine; is nationalism guided by religion or vice versa?
Today, we see the consequence of this confusion manifest itself through violence, bigotry and intolerance. To be sure, the confusion is not caused by the Constitution itself but the unresolved contradictions within it certainly do not help the matter. So, for example, there exists a Federal Shariat Court but there is also a Supreme Court; bank “interest” is ubiquitous but the Constitution proclaims that “the state shall eliminate riba (usury)”; it defines who is a Muslim but also promises that “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”.
The problem is not the constitutional prevalence of religion, per se, for its incorporation represents popular sentiment. The issue is rather that its political management has aggravated neurosis within an already schizophrenic society, distracted debate from more relevant issues of justice and provided ill-intentioned leaders room to manipulate the national psyche to further entrench their power.
By Dawood Ahmed, a scholar of comparative constitutional design
Truthful representation
AFP/File
Necessary amendments are required in the Constitution, for elections to general seats of the National and provincial assemblies, and also for non-Muslim reserved seats to these assemblies.
Article 51 provides for elections to general seats of the National Assembly on the basis of single-member territorial constituencies. The same goes for the provincial assemblies under Article 106. The first-past-the-post system – because of which a large number of votes polled by losing candidates are simply wasted – has given rise to rigging and corrupt practices on part of local candidates in such elections. This can be rectified through an amendment introducing proportional allocation of seats, which will give weight to all votes cast in favour of candidates from every political party.
Similarly, the provisions regarding elections to seats reserved for non-Muslims under Articles 51 and 106 are unsatisfactory. Non-Muslims are denied true representation because elections are based on political parties’ lists. Since this may include candidates who are unknown or unpopular within their respective communities, candidates to such seats can be elected by direct votes from within. Additionally, the non-Muslim right to vote for general seats should also be continued.
By Hamid Khan, a politician and Supreme Court lawyer
This was originally published in Herald's June 2015 issue. To read more, subscribe to Herald in print
Herald
Published about 4 hours ago
Illustration courtesy Dawn.com
Elected and dictatorial rulers both have exploited the need for constitutional changes chiefly to safeguard their own political interests by inserting anomalies such as indemnity for military coups and an executive presidency. Various experts have pointed fingers at the contradictions within the 1973 Constitution, such as the federal structure, law and order and the role of religion. As the Supreme Court grapples with the same issue while hearing petitions against the latest amendments, Herald invites commentators to suggest what they think needs to change in the Constitution to rid it of some, if not all, of these anomalies.
An inclusive policy
AFP/File
In view of the widespread confusion and misinterpretation leading to discrimination against minorities and certain Muslim sects in Pakistan, I strongly feel that the address of Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the constituent assembly on August 11, 1947, should be added to the Constitution as its preamble. This clearly declares that the state will treat all citizens equally and that it has nothing to do with the religion of its citizens — maintaining that it is a personal matter.
Another suggestion I would like to offer is for certain wordings in Clause 5 of the 1949 Objectives Resolution to be clarified, where it states: “Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.”
Here, I strongly recommended that “Quran and Sunnah” must have an addition of “as interpreted by their own sect”, or words to the effect, so as to make it practical and acceptable to all sects of Muslims in Pakistan.
By Fahmida Riaz, a poet, writer and translator
Saving the federation
Chief Minister Sindh Qaim Ali Shah with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at the PM House in Islamabad | APP
Although the 18th Amendment changed Articles 102 and 280 of the Constitution to strengthen the federalist structure of Pakistan, five years later, the continuous contestation between the centre and the provinces over distribution of authority, resources and policies continues.
We are currently in a transitional phase where ensuring Pakistan’s federalist nature is principally a work in progress. For example, major work on the Federal Legislative List II is needed to ensure that this is handled under the post-18th Amendment spirit of input and control of the provinces, within the existing Council of Common Interests structure. New coordination channels and changes to the old structures are required for this. Significantly within the context of hyper-politics and in the era of proliferation of information, this becomes a daunting task.
There are two routes available to Pakistan for embracing the federalist structure post 18th Amendment. Firstly, the transactional route whereby mechanisms, which are either predetermined or agreed upon during centre–provincial interaction, are set up for smooth transfer of authority, resources and policymaking. Secondly, a clear constitutional route whereby the centre is mandated to put in place – within a given time frame – implementation mechanisms for transfer of these powers, as broadly laid out in the 18th Amendment.
To prevent this transition phase from descending into a costly quagmire of chronic bickering, controversies and competition, the constitutional route is the required route.
By Nasim Zehra, a television anchor and columnist
Costly misconceptions
Herald cover February 1978
One area of the Constitution where a radical rethink is warranted is the identity and role of religion within the state. Since inception, Pakistan has struggled with defining itself. Is it an Islamic or secular state; can laws made by the will of men be set aside in the name of the Divine; is nationalism guided by religion or vice versa?
Today, we see the consequence of this confusion manifest itself through violence, bigotry and intolerance. To be sure, the confusion is not caused by the Constitution itself but the unresolved contradictions within it certainly do not help the matter. So, for example, there exists a Federal Shariat Court but there is also a Supreme Court; bank “interest” is ubiquitous but the Constitution proclaims that “the state shall eliminate riba (usury)”; it defines who is a Muslim but also promises that “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”.
The problem is not the constitutional prevalence of religion, per se, for its incorporation represents popular sentiment. The issue is rather that its political management has aggravated neurosis within an already schizophrenic society, distracted debate from more relevant issues of justice and provided ill-intentioned leaders room to manipulate the national psyche to further entrench their power.
By Dawood Ahmed, a scholar of comparative constitutional design
Truthful representation
AFP/File
Necessary amendments are required in the Constitution, for elections to general seats of the National and provincial assemblies, and also for non-Muslim reserved seats to these assemblies.
Article 51 provides for elections to general seats of the National Assembly on the basis of single-member territorial constituencies. The same goes for the provincial assemblies under Article 106. The first-past-the-post system – because of which a large number of votes polled by losing candidates are simply wasted – has given rise to rigging and corrupt practices on part of local candidates in such elections. This can be rectified through an amendment introducing proportional allocation of seats, which will give weight to all votes cast in favour of candidates from every political party.
Similarly, the provisions regarding elections to seats reserved for non-Muslims under Articles 51 and 106 are unsatisfactory. Non-Muslims are denied true representation because elections are based on political parties’ lists. Since this may include candidates who are unknown or unpopular within their respective communities, candidates to such seats can be elected by direct votes from within. Additionally, the non-Muslim right to vote for general seats should also be continued.
By Hamid Khan, a politician and Supreme Court lawyer
This was originally published in Herald's June 2015 issue. To read more, subscribe to Herald in print
