Q. No. 2. Examine the view that Hegelian spirit is nothing but evolution of human consciousness to the realization of political maturity for global human co-existence.
Introduction
The philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel revolves around the dialectical progression of history and human consciousness. His idea of the “world spirit” (Weltgeist) represents an evolving realization of freedom, reason, and political maturity. This essay critically analyzes the claim that the Hegelian spirit is the evolutionary force driving humankind toward universal co-existence and a morally mature global order.
“The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.” — Hegel
- Understanding the Hegelian Spirit
🔹 World Spirit (Weltgeist)
- Not a mystical force, but the collective ethical spirit of humankind
- Evolves dialectically through thesis–antithesis–synthesis
- Realized through historical conflicts, revolution, and reflection
🔹 Stages of Consciousness
Stage | Description |
Subjective Spirit | Individual self-awareness and morality |
Objective Spirit | Social institutions, law, ethics |
Absolute Spirit | Art, religion, and philosophy—the unity of idea and reality |
“Only through the state does man achieve reality.” — Hegel
- Political Maturity Through Historical Dialectic
- History is not chaos but rational and teleological
- Each stage of political development (despotism, monarchy, democracy) represents progress in freedom
- State is the embodiment of ethical life (Sittlichkeit)
🔹 Examples in World History
Epoch | Dialectical Progress |
Greek Polis | Birth of civic consciousness |
Roman Law | Institutional justice |
Christian Morality | Moral universality |
French Revolution | Democratic awakening |
Modern Constitutional State | Ethical unity of individual and universal will |
- Global Co-existence as the End of Spirit’s Journey
Hegel’s spirit matures as societies internalize:
- Rationality in political order
- Individual freedom as the core of legitimacy
- Ethical universality transcending national egoism
Though Hegel was Eurocentric, his dialectic permits integration and synthesis of non-European values into global political maturity.
- Critical Evaluation: Support and Challenges
✅ Strengths of the Hegelian View
- Optimistic teleology: humanity learns from history
- Ethical state ideal promotes civic responsibility
- Inspiration for thinkers like Marx, Fukuyama, Habermas
❌ Critiques
Thinker | Critique |
Karl Popper | Historicism leads to determinism |
Karl Marx | Alienation persists; state is class oppression |
Post-colonial critics | Eurocentric, neglects diverse epistemologies |
“To realize freedom, one must critique the very institutions that claim to embody it.” — Marx, critique of Hegel
- Contemporary Relevance
- UN Charter and universal human rights reflect Hegelian universalism
- European Union as synthesis of sovereignty and cooperation
- Climate diplomacy and global governance mirror ethical co-existence
🌍 Case Study: Post-WWII World Order
- Reconciliation between Germany and France
- Rise of international law and institutions (e.g., ICC, WTO)
- From national rivalry to global solidarity
- Islamic and Eastern Parallels
- Iqbal: Human self evolves toward divine realization; state must reflect spiritual unity
- Confucianism: Moral hierarchy in harmony with universal order
- Ashraf Ali Thanvi & Shah Waliullah: Ethical governance as culmination of human development
These suggest a multicultural Hegelianism, integrating diverse traditions into a shared global ethic.
Conclusion
Hegel’s idea of the world spirit offers a powerful lens through which we can understand political evolution as a journey toward maturity, freedom, and global ethical order. Though challenged for its Western bias, the theory remains influential in articulating why humanity must progress beyond self-interest and power politics toward rational and moral co-existence.
“What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational.” — Hegel
Hegel’s vision ultimately affirms hope—that despite war, division, and delay, history bends toward justice, maturity, and unity.
Q. No. 3: The Growing Judicial Activism in Pakistan is Clearly at the Expense of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Supremacy. Critically Analyze the Statement.
Outline
- Introduction
- Understanding Judicial Activism
- Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty
- Historical Evolution of Judicial Activism in Pakistan
- Landmark Cases and Instances of Judicial Activism
- Conflict Between Judiciary and Parliament
- Arguments Supporting Judicial Activism
- Arguments Supporting Parliamentary Supremacy
- Constitutional Balance and Institutional Integrity
- Comparative Perspective: UK, India, USA
- Impacts of Judicial Activism on Democracy
- Recommendations for Harmonizing Institutions
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The principle of separation of powers is the cornerstone of democratic governance. In Pakistan, a rising trend of judicial activism—especially by the Supreme Court—has prompted heated debates about the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy. This phenomenon, while often portrayed as a safeguard of constitutionalism and fundamental rights, is argued to sometimes encroach upon the legislative and executive domains. The question arises: Is judicial activism a protector of democracy or a violator of institutional boundaries?
- Understanding Judicial Activism
Judicial activism refers to proactive judicial roles wherein judges go beyond the traditional interpretation of laws and engage in law-making or policy directions. It often emerges in:
- Suo moto actions under Article 184(3)
- Public interest litigation (PIL)
- Policy intervention by the judiciary
In Pakistan, this activism has expanded significantly, especially after the Lawyers’ Movement (2007–2009).
- Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty
The concept of parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority capable of creating or ending any law. According to Article 50 of the Constitution, Pakistan’s Parliament includes the President, National Assembly, and Senate. However, this sovereignty is constitutionally bound:
- It must operate within the limits of the Constitution
- Cannot legislate in violation of Islamic injunctions (Article 227) or Fundamental Rights (Chapter 1, Part II)
- Historical Evolution of Judicial Activism in Pakistan
Period | Judicial Role |
1950s–1970s | Judicial restraint; validation of military coups via Doctrine of Necessity |
1980s–1990s | Cautious activism; few interventions in governance |
2007 Onwards | Assertive activism under Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry |
Judicial activism peaked during:
- Restoration of judiciary (2009)
- Panama Papers case (2017)
- Suo moto on governance failures, pricing, appointments, etc.
- Landmark Cases and Instances of Judicial Activism
Case | Implication |
Panama Case (2017) | Disqualified PM Nawaz Sharif under Articles 62 & 63; judiciary intervened directly in political accountability |
Asghar Khan Case (2012) | Judiciary exposed political manipulation by military and intelligence agencies |
Suo Moto on Petrol Crisis (2020) | Judiciary ordered detailed inquiries into executive mismanagement |
Suo Moto Actions on COVID-19 (2020) | Intervened in government’s pandemic response |
- Conflict Between Judiciary and Parliament
The judiciary’s interpretative supremacy often clashes with Parliament’s legislative supremacy. Several tensions include:
- Contempt laws declared unconstitutional
- Judicial scrutiny of constitutional amendments (e.g., 21st Amendment case on military courts)
- Judiciary dictating policy and administrative decisions like school fees, hospitals, and utility pricing
These interventions are seen by many as judicial overreach, threatening the autonomy of the legislature.
- Arguments Supporting Judicial Activism
- Upholding Constitution: Judiciary acts as guardian of the Constitution.
- Check on Executive Excesses: Activism provides accountability for corruption and abuse of power.
- Weak Parliamentary Performance: Dysfunctional legislatures and political patronage justify judicial intervention.
- Public Interest: Protects citizens’ fundamental rights when executive/legislative branches fail.
- Constitutional Silence: Judiciary interprets in grey areas to ensure justice and fairness.
“Justice delayed is justice denied; but justice denied through inaction is judicial cowardice.” — Justice Bhagwati (India)
- Arguments Supporting Parliamentary Supremacy
- Democratic Legitimacy: Parliament reflects the will of the people.
- Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Judiciary has no mandate to legislate or govern.
- Judicial Subjectivity: Activism may reflect personal biases of judges.
- Undermining Executive Authority: Weakens policy implementation and national governance.
- Political Instability: Judiciary-led disqualifications create institutional mistrust and fuel political polarization.
“The role of judges is to interpret, not to govern.” — Lord Denning
- Constitutional Balance and Institutional Integrity
The 1973 Constitution lays down clear boundaries:
- Judiciary: Interprets law (Article 175–212)
- Legislature: Makes laws (Article 50–89)
- Executive: Implements laws (Articles 90–100)
Judicial encroachment into legislative or executive functions disturbs institutional equilibrium, weakening democracy and fostering judicial supremacy at the expense of popular representation.
- Comparative Perspective
Country | Judicial Activism? | Parliamentary Supremacy? |
UK | No judicial review of parliamentary statutes; parliamentary supremacy | Strong tradition of legislative sovereignty |
USA | Strong judicial activism via judicial review (Marbury v. Madison) | Balanced by robust checks and political legitimacy |
India | Judicial activism expanded via PIL; Supreme Court interprets and enforces rights | Still respects Parliament’s core supremacy, guided by Basic Structure Doctrine |
In Pakistan, the Supreme Court exercises both interpretative and moral authority, sometimes extending into policy formulation—a unique fusion not seen in many democracies.
- Impacts of Judicial Activism on Democracy
Positive:
- Encourages executive accountability
- Protects human rights and environment
- Checks corruption and inefficiency
- Enhances public trust in judiciary
Negative:
- Weakens Parliament’s credibility
- Politicizes judiciary
- Creates institutional friction
- Slows down democratic evolution
- Risk of judicial populism
- Recommendations for Harmonizing Institutions
- Judicial Reforms: Define clearer boundaries for judicial activism vs. judicial overreach.
- Parliamentary Capacity Building: Improve legislative quality, debate, and lawmaking.
- Revive Parliamentary Committees: Enhance executive accountability through democratic tools.
- Restrict Suo Moto Powers: Amend Article 184(3) to limit arbitrary actions.
- Promote Inter-Institutional Dialogue: Periodic consultation among the judiciary, executive, and legislature.
- Ensure Constitutional Literacy: Train parliamentarians and judges in constitutionalism and governance ethics.
- Conclusion
The judiciary plays a critical role in preserving constitutional order and fundamental rights, especially in fragile democracies like Pakistan. However, unchecked judicial activism, particularly at the expense of parliamentary sovereignty, can distort the delicate balance of power and democratic representation. A vibrant democracy requires strong institutions functioning within their constitutional domains. To ensure stability and progress, Pakistan must restore institutional harmony by reinvigorating parliamentary processes and ensuring judicial restraint where necessary.
“A nation can flourish only when its institutions function within their defined limits, in harmony, and with mutual respect.” — Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Visual Aid: Balance of Power Among Institutions
Institution | Primary Role | Examples of Overreach | Recommendation |
Legislature (Parliament) | Lawmaking & Representation | Ineffective debate, poor oversight | Reforms & capacity building |
Judiciary | Constitutional interpretation | Suo moto excess, policy intrusion | Limit judicial domain |
Executive | Policy implementation | Bureaucratic inertia, misuse of power | Ensure accountability |
Q. No. 4: Explain the Concept of Nationality and Distinguish Between Nationality and Citizenship.
Outline
- Introduction
- Definition of Nationality
- Legal Basis and Acquisition of Nationality
- Definition of Citizenship
- Differences Between Nationality and Citizenship
- Types of Nationality and Citizenship
- Relationship Between the Two Concepts
- Significance in Modern International Law
- Case Studies: Dual Nationality and Statelessness
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The concepts of nationality and citizenship are central to political science and international law, often used interchangeably in common discourse. However, these terms differ significantly in meaning, scope, and legal implications. Nationality defines a person’s legal membership of a nation-state, while citizenship involves active political rights and duties within that state. Understanding the distinction is crucial in today’s world of global migration, dual nationality, and evolving legal identities.
- Definition of Nationality
Nationality refers to the legal bond between an individual and a nation-state. It is a status that signifies belonging to a particular nation and is recognized under international law.
According to Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):
“Everyone has the right to a nationality.”
Nationality is generally:
- Acquired by birth (jus soli or jus sanguinis)
- Granted by the state (through naturalization, marriage, or application)
- Protected under international law
- Legal Basis and Acquisition of Nationality
Nationality is governed by municipal (domestic) laws, and there is no universal law to determine how it is acquired. The main modes of acquiring nationality include:
- Jus Soli (“right of the soil”): nationality by place of birth
- Jus Sanguinis (“right of blood”): nationality by descent
- Naturalization: by fulfilling legal conditions (residence, language, loyalty)
- Marriage: automatic or facilitated acquisition
- State Succession: when territories are transferred or divided
- Definition of Citizenship
Citizenship is the political status granted to nationals that enables them to enjoy civil and political rights and participate in governance. It is the practical application of nationality within a political system.
“Citizenship is the individual’s legal membership of a sovereign state, providing rights and obligations.” — T.H. Marshall
Citizenship includes:
- Right to vote and contest elections
- Access to public services and protection
- Obligation to pay taxes and serve the state (e.g., military, jury)
- Differences Between Nationality and Citizenship
Aspect | Nationality | Citizenship |
Definition | Legal bond with a state | Political and civil status in a state |
Nature | Permanent and inherited | Can be revoked or acquired |
Legal Basis | Internationally recognized | Domestic legal system |
Rights | Passive rights (e.g., protection abroad) | Active rights (e.g., voting, holding office) |
Example | A child born to Pakistani parents is a national | A Pakistani national becomes a citizen when registered under domestic laws |
Revocation | Rare, due to international restrictions | Can be stripped under laws (e.g., treason) |
- Types of Nationality and Citizenship
Types of Nationality
- Single Nationality: Belonging to one state only
- Dual/Multiple Nationality: Belonging to more than one state simultaneously
- Statelessness: Not legally recognized by any country as a national
Types of Citizenship
- Birthright Citizenship (based on nationality at birth)
- Naturalized Citizenship (through legal process)
- Honorary Citizenship (conferred for service or achievement)
- Corporate Citizenship (not legal, but social concept for corporations)
- Relationship Between the Two Concepts
- Nationality is a prerequisite for citizenship. One cannot be a citizen of a state without being its national.
- However, a national may not be a full citizen. For example, residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. nationals but cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections.
- Citizenship implies active political engagement, while nationality implies legal identity.
- Significance in Modern International Law
- Nationality plays a key role in diplomatic protection, immigration rights, and extradition treaties.
- Citizenship defines political representation, social contract, and nation-state legitimacy.
- Issues of statelessness, refugees, and dual nationality make the legal clarity between both terms essential.
- Case Studies
- Dual Nationality in Pakistan
- Pakistan allows dual nationality with selected countries (e.g., UK, USA, Canada).
- However, dual nationals cannot contest elections or hold high constitutional offices under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution.
- Statelessness
- Over 10 million people globally are stateless (UNHCR, 2023).
- They are nationals of no country, and hence denied basic human rights and citizenship protections.
- Conclusion
Nationality and citizenship are interlinked yet distinct concepts that define the legal and political identity of individuals. While nationality is the foundation of one’s allegiance to a state, citizenship confers upon the individual rights, responsibilities, and participation in public life. In the modern era of globalization, migration, and legal pluralism, understanding this distinction becomes increasingly important. For policy-making, constitutional interpretation, and international diplomacy, the clear delineation between nationality and citizenship is vital to ensure equity, sovereignty, and justice.
Q. No. 5: Globalization Restricts the Autonomy of the State, Generates Domestic Social Conflicts, and Inequalities. Discuss the Interactions Between Globalization and Domestic Politics
Outline
- Introduction
- Understanding Globalization
- Theoretical Framework: Globalization and the Nation-State
- How Globalization Restricts State Autonomy
- Globalization and Domestic Political Conflicts
- Impact of Globalization on Socio-Economic Inequality
- Domestic Political Responses to Globalization
- Case Studies: Globalization’s Impact on Domestic Politics
- Criticisms of Anti-Globalization Perspective
- Recommendations for Reclaiming National Autonomy
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Globalization is one of the most transformative forces of the modern world. Defined by the free flow of goods, capital, people, and ideas across borders, it has brought unprecedented connectivity. Yet, this same process has also been accused of undermining state sovereignty, deepening social cleavages, and widening inequality. The interaction between globalization and domestic politics reveals a dynamic tension—as states try to adapt to external pressures while managing internal political, social, and economic demands.
- Understanding Globalization
Globalization refers to the process of interconnectedness among states, societies, and economies driven by technology, trade liberalization, transnational institutions, and neoliberal ideology.
“Globalization is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before.” – Thomas L. Friedman
Key drivers:
- Economic liberalization (WTO, IMF, World Bank)
- Technological advances (internet, transport)
- Cultural exchange (media, migration)
- Political ideologies (neo-liberalism, democracy promotion)
- Theoretical Framework: Globalization and the Nation-State
Realist Perspective
- States remain dominant actors; globalization is state-driven
- Emphasis on state sovereignty and national interest
Liberal Perspective
- Globalization is positive-sum; interdependence promotes peace and prosperity
Marxist/Dependency Theory
- Globalization is neo-imperialism; benefits capitalist core, exploits periphery
Constructivist View
- Globalization reshapes identities, norms, and political narratives
- How Globalization Restricts State Autonomy
Aspect | Mechanism of Restriction | Examples |
Economic | Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), WTO trade rules | IMF-imposed austerity in Pakistan, Greece |
Political | Influence of international organizations and treaties | FATF compliance over domestic legislation |
Legal | International human rights treaties limit domestic lawmaking | ICJ rulings, UN conventions |
Technological | Cybersecurity breaches, foreign media influence | Data sovereignty issues |
Cultural | Erosion of indigenous values due to Western media | Fast-food chains, Hollywood globalization |
Thus, states can no longer fully control their economies, borders, or cultures without considering international implications.
- Globalization and Domestic Political Conflicts
Globalization has often intensified domestic political disputes, especially where the benefits are unevenly distributed:
- Urban vs. Rural Divide: Urban elites benefit from global trade; rural populations feel left behind
- Rise of Populism: In response to immigration, job losses, or cultural shifts (e.g., Brexit, Trumpism)
- Cultural Backlash: Resurgence of religious, ethnic, or nationalist movements
- Labor Unrest: Global outsourcing leads to job insecurity and wage suppression
“Globalization has winners and losers, and the losers are becoming politically vocal.” – Dani Rodrik
- Impact of Globalization on Socio-Economic Inequality
Globalization has amplified inequality within and between nations:
- Increased wealth concentration: Top 1% of the global population owns over 45% of global wealth (Credit Suisse, 2023)
- Race to the bottom: Countries reduce labor/environmental protections to attract investors
- Job polarization: High-skill and low-wage jobs increase, middle-class shrinks
- Educational divides: Access to global markets favors educated, urban populations
In Pakistan, globalization has benefitted certain sectors (IT, textile exports) while marginalizing others (local artisans, agriculture).
- Domestic Political Responses to Globalization
Countries have responded in varied ways to the tensions globalization creates:
Response Type | Examples |
Populism & Protectionism | Trump’s America First, Modi’s “Atmanirbhar Bharat” |
Regulatory Reforms | GDPR in the EU, digital sovereignty laws in China |
Nationalism & Identity Politics | Rise of far-right parties in Europe |
Civil Society Resistance | Anti-WTO protests, environmental activism |
Policy Balancing | Hybrid models like China’s state capitalism, Malaysia’s social market policies |
- Case Studies: Globalization’s Impact on Domestic Politics
- Pakistan
- IMF programs have triggered mass protests due to austerity
- WTO and GATT pushed trade liberalization, affecting local industries
- FATF compliance influenced Pakistan’s anti-terrorism legislation and banking laws
- United States
- Globalization led to deindustrialization in the Rust Belt, fueling support for Trump’s anti-globalization rhetoric
- European Union
- Open borders led to migrant crises, fueling nationalism and weakening EU solidarity (Brexit being the most prominent result)
- Criticisms of Anti-Globalization Perspective
While globalization does challenge national autonomy, critics argue:
- State remains powerful in security, taxation, education, and core sovereignty
- Global governance is essential to solve transnational issues (climate, terrorism, pandemics)
- Inequality is not inevitable; it depends on domestic redistribution and policy frameworks
- Isolationism leads to stagnation; integration fosters innovation and growth
“Blaming globalization for domestic failures is often an easy excuse for poor governance.” – Joseph Stiglitz
- Recommendations for Reclaiming National Autonomy
- Strategic Global Integration: Engage globally while protecting domestic priorities (e.g., South Korea’s development model)
- Redistributive Policies: Tax reforms and social protection to counter inequality
- Strengthen Local Economies: Support SMEs and indigenous industries
- Cultural Safeguarding: Promote local media and education to preserve identity
- Digital Sovereignty: Develop national cyber laws and data centers
- Transparent Governance: Ensure that trade deals and IMF loans are subject to parliamentary oversight
- Conclusion
Globalization is a double-edged sword—offering opportunities for progress while also posing profound challenges to state autonomy and domestic political harmony. While states can no longer operate in isolation, they must develop resilient political structures, redistributive mechanisms, and strategic engagement policies to manage the complex interactions between global pressures and national interests. The future of domestic politics lies not in resisting globalization but in reshaping it to serve inclusive and sovereign development.
“The real task is not to stop globalization but to tame it.” — Kofi Annan
Q. No. 6: How Far Will the 18th Amendment Transform the Existing Federal System in Pakistan?
Outline
- Introduction
- Historical Evolution of Federalism in Pakistan
- Overview of the 18th Constitutional Amendment
- Key Provisions of the 18th Amendment Related to Federalism
- Transformation of the Federal System:
- Legislative Autonomy
- Fiscal Federalism
- Role of the Council of Common Interests (CCI)
- Provincial Empowerment
- Challenges in Implementation
- Criticism and Political Resistance
- Comparative Perspective: India, USA
- Impact on National Integration and Governance
- Recommendations for Strengthening Federalism
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Federalism in Pakistan has historically suffered from central dominance, constitutional ambiguities, and provincial alienation—particularly in smaller provinces like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The 18th Constitutional Amendment (2010) is considered a watershed moment that aims to decentralize power, enhance provincial autonomy, and restore the spirit of cooperative federalism. The question remains—to what extent has this amendment transformed Pakistan’s federal structure in practice?
- Historical Evolution of Federalism in Pakistan
Constitution | Federal Structure |
1956 | Quasi-federal with limited provincial autonomy |
1962 | Strongly centralized presidential system |
1973 | Parliamentary and federal in nature, but not implemented in true spirit |
Pre-18th Amendment | Centralized control through Concurrent List, NFC delays, and military rule |
- Overview of the 18th Constitutional Amendment (2010)
The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan was passed unanimously by Parliament in April 2010. It repealed the 17th Amendment, restored the 1973 Constitution, and included 102 changes to 280 articles.
“The 18th Amendment is a step toward real federalism and provincial empowerment.” – Raza Rabbani, Architect of the Amendment
- Key Provisions Related to Federalism
Key Area | Reforms Introduced |
Abolition of Concurrent Legislative List | Subjects like education, health, environment, and culture transferred to provinces |
Council of Common Interests (CCI) | Made a permanent body under Article 153; to meet at least once every 90 days |
Fiscal Decentralization | Strengthened NFC Award; provinces receive 57.5% of divisible pool |
Administrative Autonomy | Provinces gained control over natural resources, police, and regulatory institutions |
Renaming of NWFP | Renamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, addressing ethnic and identity concerns |
- Transformation of the Federal System
- Legislative Autonomy
- Provinces can now legislate independently in 47 previously shared subjects.
- Greater control over education, health, labor, and women’s rights.
- Fiscal Federalism
- Provinces gained enhanced fiscal autonomy under the 7th NFC Award (2009).
- Increased share from 46% to 57.5% of federal divisible pool.
- Strengthening CCI
- The CCI was reactivated as a central forum for resolving federal-provincial disputes.
- Equal representation for provinces ensured cooperative decision-making.
- Provincial Empowerment
- Provincial public service commissions, higher education commissions, and regulatory authorities were established.
- Provincial control over mineral and natural resources (Article 172).
Result: Shift from centralized governance to participatory federalism.
- Challenges in Implementation
Issue | Explanation |
Capacity Deficit | Provinces lack institutional infrastructure and expertise |
CCI’s Weak Operationalization | Irregular meetings and limited enforcement |
Federal Encroachments | Creation of parallel federal bodies (e.g., Higher Education Commission) |
Political Resistance | Some political actors favor rollback due to fear of fragmentation |
Lack of Provincial Laws | Provinces slow to legislate in devolved subjects |
- Criticism and Political Resistance
- Centralist Narratives: Critics argue that devolution weakens national integration and creates inconsistent policy frameworks.
- Education and Health Standards: Unequal implementation across provinces has raised concerns.
- Security and Counterterrorism: National coordination weakened after devolving police and law enforcement.
- Political Opportunism: Parties favor devolution when in provinces, but seek centralization when in federal government.
- Comparative Perspective: Federalism in India and USA
Country | Federal Features | Lessons for Pakistan |
India | Strong central control; “quasi-federal” model | Cooperative federalism with performance-linked funding |
USA | State autonomy in law and taxation | Federal agencies regulate standards while states execute policies |
Pakistan’s post-18th Amendment model seeks a middle path—autonomy with coordination.
- Impact on National Integration and Governance
Positive Impacts:
- Reduced Provincial Alienation (e.g., KP, Balochistan)
- Responsive Local Governance
- Increased Provincial Ownership of Development
Negative Impacts:
- Disparities in Service Delivery
- Overlapping Jurisdictions
- Ethnic Politics Reinforced in some regions
- Recommendations for Strengthening Federalism
- Institutional Capacity Building in provincial bureaucracies
- Operationalization of CCI with binding decisions and transparent agendas
- Clear Federal-Provincial Coordination Mechanism
- Harmonized Policies through interprovincial councils
- Revise NFC Formula to include backwardness and performance indicators
- Avoid Central Parallel Institutions in devolved sectors
- Conclusion
The 18th Amendment marks a significant shift toward genuine federalism in Pakistan. It has rebalanced power, enhanced provincial autonomy, and institutionalized intergovernmental dialogue. However, its success depends on political will, administrative capacity, and cooperative federalism. While challenges remain, the Amendment lays the foundation for a stronger, more inclusive, and democratic Pakistan—where the unity of the federation is strengthened through the empowerment of its federating units.
“Federalism is not about weakening the center but about strengthening the federation.” – Constitutional Scholar, Dr. Ijaz Shafi Gilani
Q. No. 7: Fascism Generally Flourishes in Countries with Strong Nationalism and Weak Democracies. Discuss the Enabling Conditions for Fascism with Reference to Germany and Italy
Outline
- Introduction
- Defining Fascism: Core Features
- Theoretical Basis: Fascism and Political Conditions
- Enabling Conditions for Fascism in General
- Case Study I: Rise of Fascism in Italy under Benito Mussolini
- Case Study II: Rise of Fascism in Germany under Adolf Hitler
- Role of Nationalism and Weak Democracy in Both Cases
- Comparative Analysis: Italy vs. Germany
- Lessons and Warnings for the Modern World
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology that promotes ultranationalism, dictatorial leadership, suppression of dissent, and militarization of society. It thrives in environments marked by political instability, economic crisis, weak democratic institutions, and manipulated nationalism. The two most infamous examples—Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany—demonstrate how fertile such conditions can be for the emergence of fascism.
“Fascism is the child of fear, nationalism, and the failure of democracy.” — Historian Stanley Payne
- Defining Fascism: Core Features
Fascism is characterized by:
- Extreme nationalism and racism
- Authoritarian leadership (cult of personality)
- Anti-democratic and anti-liberal ideologies
- Militarism and glorification of violence
- Suppression of opposition and media
- Corporate state model (controlled capitalism)
- Theoretical Basis: Fascism and Political Conditions
- Political Theory
- According to Juan Linz, fascism arises in regimes vulnerable to authoritarian breakdown, particularly when liberal democratic traditions are weak.
- Hannah Arendt argued that mass discontent, alienation, and breakdown of norms create a vacuum filled by totalitarianism.
- Socio-political Vacuum Theory
- Fascism often emerges in times of crisis, when existing political systems fail to respond effectively to public needs.
- Enabling Conditions for Fascism in General
Condition | Explanation |
Economic Crisis | Unemployment, inflation, and poverty make masses receptive to authoritarian solutions |
Weak Democratic Institutions | Absence of rule of law, weak parliaments, and lack of political traditions |
Hyper-nationalism | Propaganda about national superiority and revanchism |
Fear of Communism | Fascists often gain support by opposing leftist movements |
Charismatic Leadership | Personal appeal of leaders like Mussolini and Hitler |
Manipulation of Media and Propaganda | Control of public opinion through censorship and mass rallies |
- Case Study I: Rise of Fascism in Italy under Benito Mussolini
Historical Context
- Post-WWI Italy faced economic chaos, high unemployment, and territorial dissatisfaction (e.g., Treaty of Versailles).
- The parliamentary system was weak, and coalition governments were dysfunctional.
Rise of Mussolini
- Founded Fasci di Combattimento in 1919; became National Fascist Party in 1921.
- Capitalized on fear of socialism, labor strikes, and national humiliation.
- March on Rome (1922): King Victor Emmanuel III appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister.
Policies and Governance
- Suppressed opposition, banned other parties, and established dictatorship.
- Glorified the Roman Empire, emphasized nationalist propaganda, and militarized education and society.
- Formed corporate state where industries were controlled but not nationalized.
- Case Study II: Rise of Fascism in Germany under Adolf Hitler
Historical Context
- Germany’s defeat in WWI and the harsh Treaty of Versailles created widespread resentment.
- Weimar Republic (1919–1933) was seen as weak, corrupt, and responsible for economic woes.
- Hyperinflation, Great Depression, and unemployment devastated the economy.
Rise of Hitler
- Joined German Workers’ Party, later renamed National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party).
- Gained popularity with nationalist rhetoric, anti-Semitism, and anti-communist stance.
- Appointed Chancellor in 1933; quickly passed Enabling Act to assume dictatorial powers.
Policies and Governance
- Centralized control, banned opposition, enforced racial purity laws, and launched massive propaganda campaigns.
- Pursued military expansion, leading to WWII.
- Used Gestapo and SS to maintain totalitarian control.
- Role of Nationalism and Weak Democracy in Both Cases
Nationalism as a Tool
- In Italy: Promoted revival of Roman glory, territorial expansion in Africa.
- In Germany: Promoted Aryan supremacy, revenge for Versailles, and Lebensraum (living space).
Weak Democracies
- Italy’s liberal democracy failed to deliver post-war stability; Mussolini exploited divisions.
- Weimar Germany’s democracy was delegitimized by war guilt, economic crises, and political violence.
Both leaders used legal means initially, gaining power through elections or appointments, but dismantled democracy once in office.
- Comparative Analysis: Germany vs. Italy
Aspect | Italy (Mussolini) | Germany (Hitler) |
Origin of Discontent | Post-war instability, socialist threat | Treaty of Versailles, Great Depression |
Ideology | Nationalism, corporatism | Nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism |
Method of Power | March on Rome; royal appointment | Electoral success; Enabling Act |
Militarism | Moderate | Extreme; preparation for global war |
Outcome | Colonial ambitions; eventual fall in WWII | Holocaust, WWII aggression, total destruction |
- Lessons and Warnings for the Modern World
- Democratic fragility in times of crisis can lead to authoritarian backsliding.
- Unchecked nationalism can transform legitimate pride into xenophobia.
- Populist leaders often exploit economic and social anxieties to dismantle liberal norms.
- Media control and disinformation are key instruments in the fascist playbook.
Modern examples of creeping authoritarianism (Hungary, Turkey, etc.) highlight the need for vigilant democratic institutions.
- Conclusion
Fascism does not emerge in a vacuum; it is nurtured in conditions of fear, humiliation, and weak democracy, fertilized by hyper-nationalism and political opportunism. Both Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany exemplify how quickly democratic systems can be hijacked when institutions fail and public confidence erodes. The lessons of fascism’s rise remain profoundly relevant today. A robust, inclusive democracy with empowered institutions, civic education, and responsible leadership is essential to prevent the recurrence of such dangerous ideologies.
“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” – Thomas Jefferson
Q. No. 8: How Far is it True to Say that the Origin of the State Lies in Force? Discuss Critically the Theory of Force Regarding the Origin of the State.
Outline
- Introduction
- Definition of the State
- Overview of Theories of Origin of the State
- Force Theory: Core Assumptions and Historical Background
- Philosophical Supporters of Force Theory
- Critical Analysis of the Force Theory
- Arguments in Favor of the Force Theory
- Arguments Against the Force Theory
- Comparative View: Other Theories vs. Force Theory
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The origin of the state has long fascinated political theorists, historians, and philosophers. Among the multiple explanations, the Theory of Force holds that the state originates from conquest, coercion, and violence, rather than mutual agreement or natural development. It posits that might precedes right, and political authority was first established by those who used physical power to subjugate others. The theory raises an important debate: Is force the foundation of the state, or merely one of its tools?
- Definition of the State
A state is a political organization with:
- Defined territory
- Permanent population
- Government
- Sovereignty (internal and external)
- Legal recognition (modern aspect)
“The state is a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” – Max Weber
- Overview of Theories of Origin of the State
Theory | Main Idea |
Divine Theory | State is created by God |
Social Contract Theory | State formed through mutual agreement |
Historical/Evolutionary Theory | State evolved from family and kinship |
Force Theory | State originates through coercion and conquest |
- Force Theory: Core Assumptions and Historical Background
The Force Theory contends that the state is born when a powerful individual or group subdues others and establishes control through military dominance. This control gradually institutionalizes into governance.
Key Assumptions
- War, conquest, and subjugation are primary causes of state formation.
- Political authority is a product of coercive power.
- Obedience is demanded, not negotiated.
Historical Roots
- Ancient empires like Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and the Mongol Empire are cited as examples.
- Tribal chiefs or warlords evolved into kings and emperors by force.
- Philosophical Supporters of the Force Theory
Thinker | Viewpoint |
Treitschke (Germany) | “War is the father of all things. The state is power. It is not founded on the consent of men but on conquest.” |
Jenks | Emphasized war and force as causes of social cohesion |
Gumplowicz | Saw war between groups as the basis of political organization |
Nietzsche | Glorified power and dominance as foundations of moral and political order |
- Critical Analysis of the Force Theory
The Force Theory offers valuable insights into early state formation, particularly in societies where power was acquired through conquest and tribal wars. However, it fails to explain how states develop legitimacy, laws, institutions, and consent, which are essential to modern governance.
Critique: “Force may create a state, but cannot sustain it without justice and law.” – Harold Laski
- Arguments in Favor of the Force Theory
- Historical Evidence
- Ancient states were often formed through military conquest (e.g., Roman Empire, Islamic Caliphate expansion, British colonization).
- Initial Authority Was Coercive
- Primitive societies had strongmen who enforced rule by brute strength.
- Realist Political Thinking
- In line with Machiavellian and Realist thought—states are built on power, not ideals.
- State Monopoly on Force (Weberian Idea)
- State continues to wield coercive force through police, army, courts.
- Arguments Against the Force Theory
- Ignores Consent and Legitimacy
- Political obedience requires legitimacy, not just coercion. Even authoritarian regimes seek justification.
- Fails to Explain Peaceful State Formation
- Many modern states emerged through negotiation, diplomacy, or evolution (e.g., Canada, Scandinavian states).
- Contradicts Democratic Ideals
- Modern states are based on rule of law, social contracts, and popular will—not brute force.
- One-Dimensional
- Reduces complex social, cultural, economic, and religious factors to mere violence.
- Short-Term Applicability
- While force may start a political order, its sustainability depends on justice, law, and institutions.
- Comparative View: Other Theories vs. Force Theory
Theory | Nature of Origin | Focus | Sustainability |
Force Theory | Violent conquest | Power and coercion | Weak over time |
Social Contract | Mutual agreement | Consent and legitimacy | High |
Divine Theory | Religious authority | Obedience to divine right | Declining relevance |
Evolutionary Theory | Gradual development | Kinship and social bonds | Natural and stable |
Hence, force may explain the birth of some states, but consent and cooperation explain their life.
- Conclusion
While the Theory of Force offers an important lens into the early phases of state formation, especially in antiquity and colonial history, it presents a partial and reductionist view. Modern states—especially liberal democracies—are not sustained by force but by laws, institutions, public trust, and civic participation. Force may be a tool, but not the foundation of a legitimate political order. Thus, it is only partly true to say that the origin of the state lies in force.
“A sword may found a state; it cannot govern one.” — Montesquieu
. . Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019 Political Science I-2019