“NOW, therefore,” declares the Preamble to a document passed by almost all those present in the National Assembly in Islamabad on April 10, 1973, “we the people of Pakistan, conscious of our responsibility before Almighty Allah and men, cognisant of the sacrifices made by the people of Pakistan, faithful to the declaration made by the Founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, that Pakistan would be a democratic State based on the Islamic principles of social justice […] do hereby, through our representatives in the National Assembly, adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitution.” The 1973 Constitution — that followed previous, short-lived documents — was accepted by elected representatives of political parties with different leanings. No doubt, many of its clauses remain open to interpretation, and the debate on some of the principles it upholds has been extensive, but the document, like any other, provides the foundation upon which the state is built. That today its existence is being questioned by some shows a mindset that spurns the principles of democracy.

A constitution is a basic law that institutionalises the political process and defines the rights of the individual and, in the case of a federation, those of the constituent units. This division of powers and the separation of powers among the three organs of the state lay down rules that govern the working of the state, which must perpetuate itself as an organic unity. Yet, a constitution is made not only for the generation that enacts it but for posterity as well. For that reason, every constitution must be flexible and have room for amendments by future generations which will live in times of their own. The Constitution of 1973 adheres to these principles and lays down a procedure for amending the basic law to make it a living, dynamic document capable of responding to the needs of the future.

In fact, the 1973 Constitution is remarkable for its resilience. Two dictators mauled it, incorporating by decree some obnoxious clauses, arbitrarily changing its parliamentary character and giving the head of state the power to sack an elected government and dissolve the National Assembly. Yet, when the dictators fell, the Constitution re-emerged in its pristine form that heralded its moral strength. Today, elements who do not appear to be “cognisant” of the sacrifices the preamble speaks of have denounced the Constitution. Against this background, the prime minister’s statement deserves to be welcomed. In Raiwind on Friday, Nawaz Sharif said his government would talk only to those who “have regard for the Constitution and integrity of the country”. Let us hope that the prime minister lives by his words and does not compromise on a golden principle.