Outline

1.     Introduction

2.     Political and Constitutional Crises (1947–1956)

3.     Political and Constitutional Crises (Post-2008 Era)

4.     Comparative Table: Key Features of Both Periods

5.     Reflection of Structural Weaknesses in Governance

6.     Institutional Response and Public Trust

7.     Lessons and the Way Forward

8.     Conclusion

1. Introduction

Since its inception, Pakistan has faced recurrent political and constitutional instability. These crises—whether in the early post-independence period (1947–1956) or the democratic restoration after military rule (post-2008)—are not isolated events, but rather symptoms of deep structural flaws in governance, institutional imbalance, and elite-centric politics.

This answer provides a comparative analysis of these two periods, exploring their roots, manifestations, and implications for Pakistan’s state-building process.

2. Political and Constitutional Crises (1947–1956)

A. Lack of Constitution

·         Pakistan functioned without a permanent constitution for 9 years.

·         Governed under the Government of India Act 1935 (with adaptations).

B. Frequent Leadership Changes

·         7 prime ministers between 1947–1956 (e.g., Liaquat Ali Khan, Nazimuddin, Bogra).

·         Political instability due to bureaucratic dominance and Governor General’s discretion.

C. Delay in Constitution-Making

·         Multiple drafts (Basic Principles Committees, 1950 & 1952) rejected.

·         Religious–secular divide, provincial autonomy, and language issues caused delays.

D. Centralization vs. Provincial Autonomy

·         Unequal treatment of East Pakistan (e.g., Urdu-Bengali language crisis).

·         Failure to accommodate provincial aspirations led to political polarization.

E. Judiciary’s Controversial Role

·         Maulvi Tamizuddin Case (1954): Validated the Governor General’s dismissal of the Constituent Assembly, setting precedent for executive supremacy.

3. Political and Constitutional Crises (Post-2008 Era)

A. Civil–Military Tensions

·         Although elected governments returned post-Musharraf, military influence on foreign, security, and economic policies remained dominant.

B. Judicial Activism and Politicization

·         Judiciary emerged as a powerful actor (e.g., disqualification of PMs, suo motu notices).

·         Undermined parliamentary sovereignty and blurred institutional separation.

C. Constitutional Amendments

·         18th Amendment (2010) devolved power but created friction over resource distribution and CCI enforcement.

·         Controversies over presidential powers, judicial appointments, and federalism.

D. Political Polarization

·         Deep PTI–PML-N–PPP rivalry.

·         ECP controversies, protests, and distrust in electoral process (e.g., 2013 rigging claims, 2018 RTS controversy).

E. Governance Crisis and Institutional Breakdown

·         Poor service delivery, weak local government systems, and incoherence in public policy.

·         Rise of populist, personality-based politics, undermining institutional credibility.

4. Comparative Table: Key Features of Both Periods

5. Reflection of Structural Weaknesses in Governance

A. Weak Political Institutions

·         Both eras reveal absence of strong parliamentary oversight and internal party democracy.

·         Political instability often led to extra-constitutional interventions or executive overreach.

B. Judicial Ambiguity

·         In 1947–1956, judiciary empowered the executive (e.g., Tamizuddin case).

·         Post-2008, judiciary’s hyper-activism destabilized political equilibrium (e.g., PM Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification in 2017).

C. Over-Centralization

·         Both periods show resistance to meaningful devolution.

·         In early years, One Unit policy harmed provincial identities; post-2008, reluctance in implementing local government systems and CCI decisions weakens federalism.

D. Civil-Military Imbalance

·         Recurrent theme: military’s preeminence in national policy, undermining elected civilian mandates.

E. Crisis of Accountability and Transparency

·         Rampant corruption, nepotism, and lack of institutional checks continue to hinder trust in governance mechanisms.

6. Institutional Response and Public Trust

·         Public faith in democratic processes was compromised in both periods due to elite manipulation and non-transparent decision-making.

·         Civil society, media, and judiciary have played corrective roles post-2008, but still face censorship and coercion.

·         Electoral reforms, judicial restraint, and bureaucratic restructuring remain necessary to build long-term resilience.

7. Lessons and the Way Forward

To overcome structural weaknesses, Pakistan must:

·         Reinforce parliamentary supremacy with clear separation of powers

·         Institutionalize intra-party democracy to avoid personality-based politics

·         Ensure judicial neutrality and limit judicial overreach

·         Strengthen federalism by empowering local governments and respecting provincial mandates

·         Depoliticize bureaucracy and enforce accountability mechanisms through independent institutions

8. Conclusion

The periods 1947–1956 and post-2008 are separated by time but united by structural weaknesses—an overcentralized executive, politicized judiciary, weak institutions, and recurring military influence. These recurring crises reveal that Pakistan’s governance problems are institutional and systemic, not merely episodic or leader-centric.

Unless deep political, constitutional, and administrative reforms are institutionalized, Pakistan will continue to oscillate between constitutionalism and crisis. The real test lies not just in enacting democratic norms but in practicing them consistently.

“Strong institutions make strong democracies; strong personalities without institutions breed recurring crises.” — Adapted from Fareed Zakaria