Exploring Power Politics and Constitutional Subversions in Pakistan: A Political and Constitutional Assessment of Instability in Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pakistan’s recent history can be labeled as anything but stable. From its very inception, Pakistan has had trouble agreeing on the nations constitutional framework. Pakistan’s first constitution was not instituted until nine years after the country gained independence from Britain and partitioned itself from India. Even then, the debate as to what type of government Pakistan should have remained unsettled. In its short history, Pakistan has had three different constitutions (1956, 1962, and 1973) interspersed with periods of martial law. The Constitution of 1973, although a significant step towards democratization, has become a battleground for presidents and prime ministers, who have added amendments solely to solidify their positions in office. The struggle between the two heads of state is apparent: the Constitution of 1973 has undergone thirty-six amendments, many of which pertain to the same few articles that delegate power to the heads of state. The power struggle has made Pakistan an unstable nation. This instability is especially disconcerting since Pakistan has nuclear capabilities and is already engaged in a war within its boundaries to eradicate terrorism in accordance with the United States’ war on terror. The consequences of Pakistan’s instability could be disastrous not only for Pakistan but for the entire world. The initial focus of this paper is to analyze the constitutional amendments which have caused instability in Pakistan. This paper will first examine the Eighth Amendment passed by President Zia ul-Haq in 1985, which allowed a president to dissolve Parliament and dismiss the prime minister. This power has been invoked by multiple presidents to overthrow elected prime ministers based on largely unsubstantiated claims. Next, this paper will address Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, which were ratified in 1993. These amendments not only reduced the president’s powers but also increased those of the prime minister. Finally, this paper will discuss former President Pervez Musharraf’s Seventeenth Amendment, which was ratified in 2003. This amendment once again restored the presidential powers created by the Eighth Amendment and reduced the prime minister’s powers. Pakistan’s structural instability demands analysis of the underlying political and constitutional problems which prevent it from becoming a stable nation. First, Pakistan’s presidents and prime ministers have adopted a form of “power politics” in which one office has exclusive decision-making power and does not share it with the other. Moreover, the presidents and prime ministers have not been willing to allow a checks-and-balances system on their authority. Second, the Pakistani Constitution is easily subverted and remains subject to the whims of Pakistan’s leaders. Current President Asif Ali Zardari recognizes the damaging effects of these amendments and has promised to ratify an Eighteenth Amendment by March 30, 2010, which would restore the balance of powers between the heads of state as originally envisioned in the Constitution of 1973. However, his proposal only addresses the first cause of instability (i.e., the political cause). Until the second cause (i.e., the constitutional cause) is also addressed, Pakistan cannot ensure stability. Accordingly, this paper will argue that President Zardari’s Eighteenth Amendment must address Article 239, the clause that governs how the Pakistani Constitution is amended. To this end, amendment formulas, as most recently adopted by the Canadian Constitution, are one possible route that Pakistan could take.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".