“Constitutions endure not because institutions are powerful, but because every institution understands where its authority ends and another’s begins.”

Constitutions are more than legal documents. They are political covenants that define how power is shared, limited and exercised within a state. Their durability depends not only on the quality of their provisions but on the willingness of those in authority to respect the limits those provisions impose. Once that restraint begins to weaken, constitutional balance slowly gives way to constitutional fragility.

Pakistan’s constitutional journey has been marked by repeated efforts to restore equilibrium among the principal organs of the state. Every political transition revives debate over the roles of Parliament, the executive, the judiciary and other institutions. Yet the underlying question remains unchanged: how can constitutional authority be exercised without disturbing the balance the Constitution itself seeks to preserve?

The Constitution neither creates institutional supremacy nor permits institutional subordination. It assigns distinct responsibilities to each organ of the state and expects every institution to function within its own constitutional space. The separation of powers was never meant to isolate institutions, but to prevent the concentration of authority through mutual restraint, accountability and respect for constitutional boundaries.

Difficulties arise when those boundaries begin to blur. Institutions sometimes assume roles that properly belong elsewhere, often in response to political crises, governance failures or public pressure. Such moves may appear necessary in the moment, but they carry long-term constitutional costs. Immediate gains rarely compensate for the erosion of institutional balance.

Pakistan’s history offers repeated examples of this pattern. Political actors have often turned to institutions not designed to arbitrate political contests. Courts are increasingly drawn into essentially political disputes. Parliament has too often allowed legislative work to be overshadowed by confrontation, while governments remain absorbed in political survival rather than sustained reform.

The result is a pattern the country has witnessed repeatedly. Political disagreements acquire constitutional........

© The Friday Times