Whenever a nation attains independence and political existence with certain territories, its first requirement is to draft a formal constitution. For an emerging nation, a constitution is not just a written document; it is the backbone of statehood. It transforms civil society into a political community bound by law, rights, and responsibilities. Without a constitution, a new state risks instability, authoritarianism, and disintegration. With one, the way towards democracy, development, and stability becomes visible. 

Following the independence of Pakistan, under the charismatic leadership of Jinnah, the initial milestone was the framing of a constitution. During this democratic struggle, a plethora of military interventions led the newly born nation to the brink of collapse. Since its birth, Pakistan has endured a vicious cycle of democracy. Nevertheless, the post-2008 era again revealed both democratic continuity and constitutional integrity. 

The unforgotten past reflects a paradox: Pakistan exhibits one of the most dynamic constitutions in the developing world—the 1973 constitution—but it has failed to embed constitutionalism within its institutions. The constitutional manipulation by dictators and the inept attitudes of political elites have undermined democracy. The enigma of a constitution without constitutionalism remains at the heart of Pakistan’s democratic crisis. This article undertakes a thorough exploration of the multifaceted factors that have shaped and tested Pakistan’s constitutional framework.

Both the constitution and constitutionalism refer to the legal and political framework of a state, yet they are unparalleled. A constitution is the written or unwritten supreme law of a country, whereas constitutionalism is a system of governance that confines the power of the ruling government, establishes the rule of law, and ensures the protection of rights. 

According to Andras Sajo, “constitutionalism is associated with traditional nineteenth-century liberalism, which always escaped textbook definitions and resisted positive description.” Many states adopt constitutions through defined mechanisms following revolutions, independence, or political transitions. For instance, Pakistan and India formulated their own constitutions through constitutional assemblies after the partition of the subcontinent. Constitutionalism, however, is maintained gradually through political practice, institutional integrity, and judicial foresight.

 To understand the bond between constitutionalism and the constitution and how they are intertwined, one may examine the constitutional frameworks of countries like the US (1787), Germany (1949), Canada (1867/1982), and the United Kingdom, where constitutionalism has been envisioned through conventions, the Magna Carta (1215), and the Bill of Rights (1689).

The constitutional history of Pakistan is a complex tapestry woven with threads of political upheavals, elitist hegemony, constitutional amendments, and prolonged military rule. Since its inception, nearly thirty-three years of Pakistan’s democratic struggle have been marred by military power struggles. Pakistan has endured multiple constitutions, though its political history has always remained turbulent. Although repeated disruptions staved off democratization and dashed institutional progress.

 Pakistan, in its earlier days following independence, adopted the........

© Paradigm Shift