THE 1973 constitution is a social agreement that carries significance for all stakeholders in Pakistan and is seen as a sacred covenant by all those who believe in democracy and change through the political process in Pakistan.

This general recognition is not because of the comprehensiveness of the constitution but the political dimension. It is firmly believed by a large section of the Pakistani intelligentsia that due to the worst political and social polarisation in the country’s history, it is almost impossible to create consensus on a new social agreement.

Therefore preference must be given to the present document. This opinion seems logical, because despite the desperate efforts of two powerful military regimes led by Gen Ziaul Haq and Gen Pervez Musharraf to introduce a one-man system in the country, a new social contract could not be customised. Eventually they had to revive the 1973 constitution.

Unfortunately, they succeeded in putting in certain changes that created more difficulties for political governments, for example Article 63.

The PPP has always claimed credit for efforts to initiate and achieve political consensus amongst political players on broader national agendas. But the consensus achieved under the leadership of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to write the present constitution, and the amendments inserted through a reconciliation policy by the present government, are altogether different in their effectiveness.

ZAB made full use of his political brilliance and acumen to bring together all major parties of a broken Pakistan to create the present constitution. That provided a smoother mechanism of governance, contrary to the amendments introduced by the sitting parliament. Some of the new amendments have brought more complexities to the political mechanism of the state.

For many observers, some of these amendments appear to be negating the basic idea of a democracy — a system of governance wherein the citizens elect their government by giving a majority vote to one group or more. That majority rules with a certain authority and consensus is not necessarily required to run the affairs of the state.

In contravention to this idea, after the insertion of these amendments in the constitution, the role of the opposition leader has emerged as one with the appointing authority for some key posts. This role is effective to the extent that some appointments cannot be made without the consent of the opposition leader. On the face of it this may look like a spectacular scheme but in fact it has created problems.

These amendments appear to have been introduced keeping an ideal situation in mind where only two parties enjoy the mandate and trust of the common public in a state. In Pakistan, the situation on the ground is entirely different.

Besides having a hung parliament and coalition federal and provincial governments, we have different opposition parties that don’t trust one another and other opposition parties, which are currently out of parliament, but demonstrate street power and mass support and accuse major political players in parliament of political manoeuvring and underhand deals. This situation is likely to prevail in the future as well.

And so it is that, beyond the expectations of constitution makers, several key appointments have been challenged in court, and serious objections have been raised on the process of appointments of the chief election commissioner, members of the Election Commission, judges, etc.

Thus, even after the insertion of these amendments, the political road map remains murky. The formation of the interim setup is still in the doldrums while the elected parliament is going to end its tenure soon.

In democratic states, parliament, being a directly elected institution is considered the most powerful, effective and sacred body, whereas in Pakistan, contrary to democratic norms, the institutions of judiciary and military are constitutionally considered more sacred than parliament itself, and the constitution suggests strong penalties for lawmakers for impertinent criticism of these two institutions (Article 63-1-g).

Another constitutional anomaly pertains to education. While the 18th Amendment was a very welcome move which gave autonomy to the provinces, and education has been made a fundamental right, the federation has lost its control over the curricula. All four provinces are at liberty to teach according to their own choice regardless of the desperate need to have a standardised course of teaching throughout the country.

In the absence of a uniform curriculum, it is not hard to imagine the situation after a few years. The devolution of education should have been kept to the extent of administrative control and the federal government should have kept full control on the syllabus.

The problem with many liberal and progressive parties is their corrupt and bad reputation and weak and ineffective governance. Due to this they are always under pressure. That is why they have failed to remove the constitutional changes inserted by the dictators.

Legislation is an ongoing process, and in this light the constitution needs improvements and changes to cater to national requirements. Prejudice towards minorities and neglected social classes must be challenged by bringing in prudent and adequate legislation.

The issue of so-called religious provisions introduced through political intrigue by military-led dispensations to enhance their illegal power must be addressed and the constitution made more comprehensive.

The writer is a lawyer.

Twitter: @faisal_fareed