Pakistani politics can be likened to a gripping national soap opera, with unexpected twists, riveting plots, and a cast of powerful figures. Just as one dramatic episode concludes, another begins, keeping both spectators and participants on edge. The latest plot twist? A proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of the apex court judges—a move that encapsulates the tension between institutions, personal power plays, and the country's evolving democratic struggles.
The constitution, the bedrock of Pakistan's governance, outlines the relationships between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, as well as the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. Amending this foundational document is not a trivial matter. Yet, Article 239 of the constitution grants the ruling party the power to amend it, provided they secure two-thirds of the parliamentary vote. The question isn’t merely whether the ruling party can gather the necessary support, but whether now is the right time for such a move. With the economy in crisis, inflation soaring, and terrorism on the rise, should this be the government's priority?
In politics, every action has an opportunity cost. When the government focuses on constitutional amendments, it inevitably diverts attention from more pressing national issues. In immature democracies, such as Pakistan's, the rules often take a back seat to personalities. This is a game of thrones where power, not principles, is the ultimate prize. The result is a widening gap between the democratic ideal and the democratic reality.
Historically, power struggles have not been unique to Pakistan. Sixteenth-century England, for example, witnessed intense conflict between the king and parliament. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in his famous work Leviathan, argued that power—not law or moral righteousness—determines who governs. This notion resonates today, where institutions in Pakistan seem locked in a perpetual struggle for dominance. Parliament, in theory, should be the strongest institution, as it represents the will of the people. Yet, it often finds itself subservient to other, more powerful forces, content to play a secondary role while claiming sovereignty only in name.
The ongoing institutional conflicts in Pakistan are not due to a lack of constitutional clarity or legal framework. The law is there, and each institution knows its role. However, the real battle is not legal but political. In any contentious situation, each side sees itself as wholly right and its opponent as entirely wrong. Ultimately, what decides the outcome is not who is right but who has more power.
In this endless soap opera, democracy lacks the hard power of guns and tanks but possesses one critical weapon: public support. No force is stronger than the people. Yet, for democracy to thrive, the people must feel invested in it. Without their trust and engagement, changes in government or constitutional amendments will have little impact on their lives. The real challenge for parliament and civilian institutions is to earn the public's unwavering confidence. Without that, the national soap opera of political maneuvering and institutional bickering will continue, with no resolution in sight.
