Constitutional Amendments: National Aims And Personal Whims

16-Points Reform Package

• Start of a Democratic Dictatorship
• Legislation and Constitution-making
• Some Precedents [Kesavananda vs. Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461), Indra Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (AIR 1973 SC 2299), Minerva Mills case (AIR 1980 SC 1789), Justice Hamoodur Rahman’s observation in Aasma Jeelani case, Observation in Nusrat Bhutto case and Achakzai case]
• Heavy mandate and PML Manifesto
• Bulldozing the Parliament
• Lust for Power
• Constitution Reforms Package [Supremacy of shariah, Powers of the senate, Key position appointments, Separation of judiciary and executive, Term of the parliament and electoral system, Powers of president & prime minister, Accountability system, Federal system, Deliverance from interest, Judicious distribution of wealth, Economic self-reliance]
• Coclusion

 

For stable and progressive society, we need sincere, noble and capable leadership. We need rule of law and protection of key institutions and their freedom. These institutions outlive human beings which are mortal. When institutions are stable, the system continues functioning despite change of leadership. Where institutions get unstable and everything depends on mortal human beings, the system becomes infirm and like a sand house that goes down with change of persons. Stability and progress demands respect for institutions which is an unforgettable lesson that history taught us. For this very reason the Holy Prophet (pbuh) prescribed the vital course for the permanence and stability of the Muslim Ummah in compulsorily following him and his Khulafa-e-Rashideen. And it was the continuance and succession of institutions in compliance of those instructions that enabled the Muslim Ummah to face all the challenges of the history.

The crisis Pakistan is faced with today stems from the negligence and disregard to the stability of institutions. The sheer truth is that the political leadership of this unfortunate nation is bent upon destabilizing and weakening all the basic institutions. The objective of people at the helm of affairs is the concentration of power. This is, of course, a straight path to destruction. The dire need of the time is to restore to institutions the value they deserve. Moreover, the distribution of powers should be so balanced as is essential for the successful functioning of any political and collective system and for saving the nation from dictatorship and fascism. The very basic difference between a democratic system and a dictatorial or fascist system is that constitution, law and institutions are held supreme in the democratic system whereas the dictatorial system practically imposes unchecked rule of one or a group of individuals over the constitution, law and the institutions.

The nation is faced with a dictatorship-like situation, just in contrast to the illusions of political imagery. It is time that we struggle effectively at every level for the protection of the constitution and the democratic institutions so that they are saved from dictatorial designs and fascist maneuvers, and a healthy balance could be struck between the different institutions of the state where they could lend strength to each other.

Start of a Democratic Dictatorship

It is sad to note that after having full grip over the presidency and the judiciary, the head of the government is now expressing his intentions of giving a package for amending, rather metamorphosing, the constitution. He is not content with the concentration of powers that he already has by virtue of the 13th and 14th Amendments. It is felt that on the pretext of the revival of 1973 Constitution, plans are afoot to bring some such changes that would entirely alter the parliamentary system into an absolute Prime Ministerial System. Prime Minister’s speech in Pakpattan should serve as an eye-opener where he said that his plans do not fit in the present system. Also, according to reports, while addressing the federal cabinet he said that the heavy mandate given by the nation to the present government calls for radical changes in the present system and procedures of the government. For this, all the ambiguities and contortions in law and the Constitution shall be removed through amendments.

What these constitutional amendments aim at? According to some reports, powers of the president are being further slashed, advice of the chief justice in the appointment of judges shall no more be necessary, and the authority to appoint chief election commissioner, the auditor general and the head of Public Service Commission shall also rest with the Prime Minister. Basic changes to the Constitution, including Articles 75, 90, 168, 213, 260 are on the anvil and it is all being done in the name of the supremacy of the Parliament. Commencing on this state of affairs, the Voice of America has said that as a result of these amendments Nawaz Sharif shall emerge as a dictator.

It is, however, clear that the direction in which the present government is heading unbridled is fraught with grave risks and the need is that timely notice is taken of these trends and they should be effectively resisted against.

It is a great tragedy that constitutional amendment has been rendered as a game of power, whereas the constitution is an important document on which depends the system of the country and that ensures stability and balance of powers. It reflects the aspirations of the whole nation and, therefore, is an historical document. No individual or a group has the right to manipulate it for personal interests or for the sake of expediency. No doubt that the door should remain open for improvement through amendments, but amendments or changes should necessarily be within the limits of and subject to the objectives of the Constitution and the nation’s historical aspirations.

Legislation and Constitution-making

Moreover, there is a difference between normal legislation and constitution-making. The responsibility of constitution-making is assigned to a body that is elected specifically for that purpose. All parliaments come into being under a constitution and its members, the executive and judiciary all pledge for its protection and enforcement. They do have limited authority to amend the constitution but they do not enjoy the right for its abrogation or metamorphosis. That is why the following two principles are considered most important in constitutional law:

First, constitutional amendments are not passed by simple majority but specific conditions are laid down for this purpose e.g., two-third majority of the parliament, or, in the federal system, approval of full parliament together with support from a large number of provincial legislatures (as in USA, India and other countries), or referendum etc., in support of the parliament. Thus a constitution acquires permanence while chances of changes are also there.

Second, it is rather more important and delicate through which a difference has been maintained between the amendment to the constitution and the changes in the basic structure and strategic system. Amendment means partial change, rectification of any error or omission. It is an attempt to fulfill the natural evolutionary requirements by adding or deleting something in consonance with the basic structure of the constitution and the strategic system. No change in deviation or clash with it, can be treated as legitimate amendment. It is a very basic issue and its understanding and reverence is essential.

As far the literal meanings of ‘amendment’ go, it is a partial and not a basic change. According to the Oxford Reference Dictionary ‘amend’ means "to correct an error; to make minor alterations in." Similarly, according to the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, it means "to free from fault or error, to correct, to improve, to alter in detail with a view of improvement as a bill before parliament, to rectify, to cure, to mend." According to Webster Third New International Dictionary ‘amend’ aims at removal of any error or deficiency and originally this word was used for that particular thing or action which facilitated the growth of a plant in the soil. So it meant to change or eliminate the thing affecting its growth process and not a change of the plant itself.

That is the reason why the constitutional experts and the Supreme Courts never considered an ‘amendment’ as synonymous with abrogation or basic alterations, but they have differentiated between changes that are in consonance with the objectives of the constitution and those that collide with it. A fresh mandate has been considered necessary if basic structure or the objectives of the state are required to be changed. In some constitutions of the world, like Iran, a few articles are declared as incontrovertible. In other countries there is reservation in empowering a parliament of a particular time to carry out amendment in the constitution at any time and in any way. In this regard, it shall be useful to have a look at the constitutional history of India and Pakistan.

Some Precedents

In India the issue surfaced in 1973. Article 8 of the Indian Constitution is about amendment to the constitution according to which two-third majority of both Lok Sabha and Rajia Sabha is required for an amendment to the constitution and in some matters support of at least half of provincial legislatures is also needed. In connection with a case of fundamental rights known as Kesavananda vs. Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461), the Supreme Court of India set the principle that the parliament enjoys no right to bring a change in the fundamental rights or in the basic structure of the constitution, because it pertains to the objectives of the state and the legality of its very existence. Therefore, any such amendment affecting them shall be considered void. In Indra Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (AIR 1973 SC 2299), the Supreme Court again confirmed this principle and observed that Article 368 does not confer any right to the parliament for such an amendment but limits this right to partial changes only.

No parliament enjoys the right to carry out any absolute, basic or radical change because it is not a constitution-making body, rather it is an institution brought into being under the constitution. It can neither abrogate the constitution nor can it change its basic structure. However, it enjoys the right to carry out a partial change in consonance with this structure. In order to render this decision ineffective the Indian Prime Minister Indra Gandhi carried out 40th amendment to the constitution through which the following Clauses 4 and 5 were added to Article 368:

Clause 4: No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article (whether before or after the commencement of Section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment)Act,1976) shall be called in question in any court on any ground.

Clause 5: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article.

This constitutional amendment was reviewed by the Indian Supreme Court in 1980 in Minerva Mills case (AIR 1980 SC 1789) and it decided that parliament had no right to carry out this amendment to Article 368 (i.e. addition of clauses 4 and 5). Therefore, the act was declared unlawful and void. This decision of the Supreme Court that the parliament cannot make any change in the basic structure of the constitution is standing and extant.

What is worth consideration is that after this decision neither Supreme Court was assaulted nor the chief justice and other judges dismissed. It was even not considered as an encroachment on the rights of parliament. Populace submitted to this constitutional principle and worked for the supremacy of law and stability of the constitution.

In Aasma Jeelani case, the Supreme Court, then headed by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman, pronounced an epoch-making, nation-saving decision which dispelled the confusion then prevailing in country. It had reversed the earlier decision given by Chief Justice Muneer. A golden principle was thus set that rule of law is only possible by respecting the Constitution. Its abrogation would amount to treason. Justice Hamoodur Rehman wrote:

Upon this analysis, I am, with the utmost respect of the learned Chief Justice, unable to resist the conclusion that he erred in interpreting Kelson’s theory and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case before him. The principle enunciated by him is, in my humble opinion, wholly unsustainable, and I am duty bound to say that it cannot be treated as good law.

Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman recorded historical words that the Objectives Resolution is the incontrovertible basic structure of the Pakistan Constitution. This resolution was passed by that constituent assembly which was elected for the purpose of framing a constitution when Pakistan was established. Outclassing deviation, he wrote:

In any event, if a grundnorm is necessary for us, I do not have to look to the Western legal theorists to discover one. Our own grundnorm is enshrined in our own doctrine that the legal sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority exercisable by the people within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust. This is an unmistakable and unalterable norm which we clearly accepted in the Objectives Resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on the 7th of March, 1949.

Justice Yaqoob Ali confirmed the decision of the Chief Justice, but in his separate judgment he not only confirmed and fully supported the basic importance of the Objectives Resolution but also declared that action of General Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan in abrogating the Constitution was unlawful and a treason that can never be considered as justified. Dictators were therefore, warned that such future encroachments shall never be deemed valid legislation. Justice Yaqoob Ali remarked:

May be that on account of his holding the coercive apparatus of the state, people and the courts are silenced temporarily, but let it be laid down firmly that the order which the usurper usurps will remain illegal and courts will not recognize its rules and act upon them as de jure. As soon as the first opportunity arises, when the coercive apparatus falls from the hands of the usurper, he should be tried for high treason and suitably punished. This alone will serve as a deterrent to the would be adventurers.

Unfortunately, the channels of this deterioration and discord could not be obstructed because the adventurists evaded the grip of law. But due to the positive judicial activism, a distinction between the lawful and unlawful, and between good and evil was established. General Ziaul Haq instead of abrogating the Constitution, held it in abeyance and the courts also held it as constitutional deviation. When Provisional Constitutional Order was applied, the then Chief Justice and a number of judges declined to take oath. Resultantly the martial law system was so cracked that democracy had to be restored in 1985.

In Nusrat Bhutto case also the chief justice determined the Objectives Resolution as basic law of the country and later the high courts also acknowledged this principled stand. Gradually all courts confirmed this principle, which ultimately formed part of the Constitution in the shape of a full bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the Achakzai case. This judgment should be studied thoroughly by the politicians, advocates and members of the parliament to settle constitutional matters. The judgment says:

One thing is beyond dispute that in all the three Constitutions, Objectives Resolution is common and the same, which has been incorporated as preamble in all the three Constitutions including the Constitution of 1973... Revival of the Constitution of 1973 puts to rest any doubts which might have arisen after the promulgation of PCO. It also appears that the intention of CMLA was to restore the Constitution with amendments to strike balance between the powers of the President and the Prime Minister and also to blend the Constitution with Islamic provisions in respect of which already foundation was laid in the Objectives Resolution... We are therefore of considered view that 8th Amendment including Article 58(2)(b) has come to stay in the Constitution as permanent feature. It is open to the Parliament to make amendment to the Constitution of any provision of the 8th Amendment as contemplated under Article 239 as long as basic characteristics of federalism, parliamentary democracy and Islamic provisions as envisaged in the Objectives Resolution/Preamble to the Constitution of 1973 which now stands as substantive part of the Constitution in the shape of Article 2A, are not touched.

This judgment of the Supreme Court settles in clear terms the basic structure of the Constitution and that amendment could only be done staying within these limits. Therefore all the religious and political forces in the country should remain cautious about it. They should try for a consensus at the national level on a package of constitutional amendments which is in consonance with the Objectives Resolutions – the basic structure of the Constitution – i.e. Islam, parliamentary democracy, federalism, protection of human rights, freedom of judiciary, balance of powers and stabilizing the supremacy of law, and should unstintedly resist any amendment that paves way for centralization of powers and for the dictatorship of any individual or group or institution, in any form.

‘Heavy’ Mandate and PML Manifesto

Since the new constitutional package is being linked with the popular mandate, it is incumbent that the reality of the popular mandate is determined in clear words. From 1985 to 1997 there have been five elections for legislature under the 1973 Constitution. None was meant for a Constituent Assembly. Then, the 1997 elections were held under extraordinary conditions and were boycotted by a heavy majority. While official figures say that one-third of the total voters turned up, all the national and foreign observers concluded that hardly 20 to 25 five per cent voters participated in the elections. The winning party carried the support of not more than 12 or 13 per cent of all the votes cast.

Even if we ignore the question of numbers and concentrate on real issues, it becomes evident that the manifesto which the Muslim League presented to the nation for the 1997 elections contained nothing about constitutional amendments. The whole manifesto carries not even a single sentence whereby non-satisfaction about the Constitution or about any part of it has been expressed. Thus no right has been achieved for the people from such amendments. The only matters that can be directly or indirectly deemed as pertaining to constitutional amendment are as under:

1. To limit legislation through ordinances (though ordinances have been promulgated by this government, too).

2. To mend the Constitution so as to banish horse-trading and changing political allegiance (done in the form of 14th Amendment with a rightful purpose but in an objectionable way as it shall lead to dictatorship of party leader).

3. Increase in the seats of the parliament so as to make the National and Provincial Assemblies fully represent different sections of society, to give representation to women and specialists of different professions through proportionate representation.

4. Open declaration of the assets of the elected representatives; putting an end to the discretionary powers or to ‘minimize’ them; discouraging large force of ministers and advisers and fixing their number; restricting the elected representatives engaged in private business through ‘conflict of interest legislation’ (none of them has been acted upon; rather there has been an increase in the force of ministers and advisers).

5. To increase the number of judges (the government instead tried to decrease the already fixed number of judges in the Supreme Court).

6. Stabilizing the accountability process: It would be incumbent upon every civil servant and elected representative to declare regularly his personal interests and assets and its record being kept open for public inspection. Setting up of an independent and sovereign body to investigate into public complaints against public representatives and state officials was also done. It shall have its own machinery for investigation and filing of suits. (Its mutilation is manifest in the shape of an Accountability Cell at the Prime Minister Secretariat).

In the PML manifesto, these were only six matters having some bearing, direct or indirect, on constitutional amendments. There is absolutely nothing in it about the 8th Amendment, the President’s powers, reorganizing the constitutional rights and the duties of the judiciary. If the manifesto was devoid of these matters, how the Premier got a mandate for them? It is his sweet will to interpret everything in his own way.

Bulldozing the Parliament

The manner in which the present government forced the parliament to approve two amendments to the Constitution vividly depicts the way of its governance and mode of working. Certainly they are an ugly blot on the face of democracy and the parliament. The 8th Amendment that has been bloated against, was discussed by the National Assembly for 40 days and the Senate devoted seven days to it. As many as 15 amendments were made in the original bill by dint of reasoning and political pressure and thus the institution of National Security Council was dropped. The powers of the Prime Minister and the President were somewhat balanced, dissolution of the Assembly was subjected to a judicial review, elections of Prime Minister and Chief Ministers were shifted to national and provincial assemblies and a firm commitment was obtained from the government for the 9th Amendment, which remained unhonored. Against all this, we have to ponder how the drama of 13th and 14th Amendments was staged.

It took only five hours each in getting through these two basic amendments without any discussion and by suspending all the rules and regulations for legislation. Obviously it is not law-making; it is a joke with the Constitution. We can say with confidence that there exists no other example in the history of world’s parliaments that constitutional amendments were carried out in such a haste and with such indifference to matters of great importance.

It is apprehended that such dramas may again be staged in future. Such evil moves should be effectively resisted since they amount to negating the Constitution, law, morality and democratic norms. If the Constitution carries some deficiencies or some changes are necessary for more effective constitutional structure, open discussions should be initiated at academic and public levels. A Commission comprising members of the Parliament and other learned and experienced persons be set up to compile constitutional suggestions. It may also derive benefit from public and academic circles and finally draw up its own suggestions. Obviously, there should be open discussions in and outside parliament so that amendments to the Constitution are carried out with maximum national consensus. They should form part of the Constitution only after a thorough consideration of each and every word of it. Any deviation from this course would lead to disturbance and no good can come out of it.

Lust for Power

There is yet another basic and fundamental matter that needs be explained. It is a well-known fact that the mental tilt of the Prime Minister is towards maximum concentration of powers in his own self. The history of the constitutional amendment of 1991, the 12th Amendment, provides an example. An attempt was made in the proposed amendment to empower the Prime Minister to suspend any clause of the Constitution at his discretion and to appoint special tribunals to deal with extraordinary conditions. The intention was to confer on Prime Minister the right to suspend, for the time being, any clause of the Constitution -- concerning the Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Federal Shariat Court or the fundamental rights. It is a matter of grief that the advice for it came from a former judge of the high court who himself drafted it. The cabinet approved it. When Qazi Hussain Ahmad and myself opposed it, the Prime Minister was shocked and jolted. The then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan also criticized it severely. When opposition to it mounted, members of the cabinet got perturbed and at least two of the members of the cabinet - General Majeed Malik and Hamid Nasir Chatta - openly admitted that they had approved it without thorough study. Chairman Senate Wasim Sajjad played a positive role in stopping the proposed amendment and drafting rather another amendment purporting to the appointment of tribunals for two years only to counter the lawlessness. There are three facets of this event about which a warning and forestalling is called for:

First, the tendency of Nawaz Sharif that all powers should be concentrated in his hands. It is against democracy and the consultative system (Shoora) and paves way for dictatorship.

Second, the cabinet’s skipping over such vital matters and not taking care of the precautions, consultations and deep insight.

Third, the attitude of some of our former judges who administered justice for a long time and acted as Protectors of the Constitution and law, but when they enter into the arena of politics one wonders how they behave.

Whatever we have put on record about this happening is a hard fact, and in doing so we do not intend to reproach anyone but it is a warning to the nation for its future.

Constitutional Reforms Package

What basic reforms are needed in the Constitution are briefly sketched here:

1. Sovereignty belongs to Allah: The most important amendment to the Constitution should be for the supremacy of Shariah and for its recognition as the Supreme Law of the country. Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) in its manifestos of 1988 and 1990 was committed to this. Earlier the National Assembly and the Senate had promised to do it in the shape of the 9th Amendment and the Senate had passed this amendment unanimously. Mr. Nawaz Sharif had himself had promised about it in 1991 in a meeting of the parliament held in the month of Ramazan. There was consensus of all schools of thought that following addition shall be made in Article 2 of the Constitution through another amendment:

Shariat-i-Islami shall be the supreme law of the country and Shariah shall be defined through those Islamic injunctions that are proved by the Qur’an and Sunnah.

2. Islam to be the source of all laws: Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution are basic Articles and form the very foundation of the entire legal system. In the light of the above amendment (the supremacy of Shariah) further necessary amendments should be carried out:

In Article 4, the right of all the people of the country should be established that they shall be treated according to Shariah and the law; and

In Article 5, it should be clarified that every law, order, discretion, decision or its compliance which is issued or enforced any time against Shariah, shall be deemed void.

3. Implementation: For the enforcement of the guiding principles for government policy as contained in Article 31 of the Constitution, an effective machinery shall be set up that shall ensure their full implementation.

4. Repeal of un-Islamic laws: In Articles 45 and 248 such powers and reservations as contravening Shariah, shall be eliminated.

5. Premier to be Muslim: "That Prime Minister should be a Muslim," as it is evident from the contents of the Prime Minister’s oath, shall be incorporated in Article 9.

6. Revival of Federal Shariat Court: The jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court shall be extended to include all laws and procedures of judiciary and executive, and the appointment of the Chief Justice and the judges of the Shariat Court shall be permanent. They shall enjoy the security and authority of the judges of Supreme Court and High Courts. All distinctive provisions in regard to their appointment, transfer, and change in their official assignments, shall be removed. All the principles and rules and regulations of the freedom of judiciary and its separation from the executive shall be one and the same in the Federal Shariat Court and in all other courts. Similarly Shariat Court shall exercise power of relief in its own jurisdiction.

7. Conferring more rights to Senate: More powers should be given to the Senate, particularly the right for discussion and giving suggestions on financial matters; right to confirm all the international agreements and confirmation of some important appointments.

8. Just procedure for key-post appointments: For the most important institutions of the state, including chiefs of the Armed Forces, Chief Justice of Pakistan, Chief Election Commissioner, chairman of the Public Service Commission and Auditor General, there should be an unambiguous code. For suggesting names there should be a system free form political interference, purely based on merit. For the appointments of political nature, a system of consultations between government and the opposition should be evolved, and approval of the concerned Committees of the Senate and the National Assembly should be sought as is done in other democratic countries.

9. Freedom of judiciary: Complete separation of judiciary from the executive and freedom of judiciary. For the retiring judge, there should exist some arrangements as to make maximum use of them in national matters but leaving no room for seeking offices of profit. The principles set by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 20th March should be given constitutional protection.

10. Curtailing term of parliament: It would be appropriate to consider anew the terms of the parliament and the provincial assemblies. It could be settled for four years so that peoples’ mandate could be renewed earlier. Proper arrangements be made for increasing the number of the members of parliament and for giving representation to effective sections of society, including women. In this regard, the system of proportionate representation – completely or partially – could be useful.

11. Balance of powers: To strike a balance between the powers of the President and the Prime Minister and to make such arrangements for the executive and parliament as may give supremacy and effective grip to the parliament over the government and administrative machinery. That parliament should not become a hostage to government and the administration.

12. Accountability: To establish the system of accountability as a permanent entity and an authoritative system giving it constitutional protection, financial freedom and its own independent mode of investigation and filing of cases, and suo moto powers to take action on the motivation of the people and the government.

13. Delegation of powers: Enforcement of the federal system in its real spirit, practical implementation of the distribution of powers as contained in the Constitution and real delegation of powers to provinces and local bodies in respect of administration, taxation, planning and development, and in all other fields.

14. Elimination of riba: Deliverance from the system of interest and loans.

15. Equitable distribution of wealth: Judicious distribution of wealth, provision of health, education, housing and opportunities for employment; preparing charters for the rights of citizens in respect of the security of life, property and honor; and an effective system for their enforcement with constitutional guarantee.

16. Self-reliance: Constitutional and legal arrangements for economic self-reliance and restriction on deficit budgeting.

These are the points which need an urgent and wholesome attention. The intended life pattern emerging in the light of the Objectives Resolution, is possible only when all these matters are in focus; the Constitution be also made effective for this purpose, and struggle is made for the realization of these objectives at the government and the public level and to adopt them as a national agenda. Only then, it can be expected that Pakistan, during the next century, shall be able to realize the objectives for which it was established.

Conclusion

While concluding we want to appeal to the nation and to all the responsible people to do their best to save the country from collision and constitutional anarchy. They should contact members of the parliament, remind them of the wrath of Allah and that they have to go to the people again. Further, it is our submission to Ulema, jurists, and political leaders that they study the Constitution with deep insight and instead of government introducing a constitutional package, the intelligent sections of the society may prepare a package of constitutional amendments which may be considered as entire nation’s will. Fortunately, there is also a precedent. Maulana Maudoodi and other leading Ulema had led the constitutional discussions in 1952 and even later constitution-making could not deviate from it. Similarly the need of the hour is that changes needed for stabilizing the original structure of the Constitution in the light of the Objectives Resolution, must be explained, and the distribution of powers should be balanced. Government and the parliament should be forced to adopt them with a national consensus.

Further Reading: Historical Development of The Islamic Provisions In Pakistan's Constitution (by Dr. Tanzilur Rahman)