Profoundly historic

The architects of the 18th Amendment while considering any change or proposed change to the constitution did not lose sight of the first principles which underlie, or should underlie, the constitution of an Islamic republic governed by the rule of law such as we aspire to be. As a consequence of their painstaking labour the National Assembly has regained its status as a supreme law-making body after thirty-three years.
This is immediately demonstrated by the dedication of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms. The adoption of the resolution would also restore the parliamentary and federal features of the constitution. Our parliamentarians, it seems, have taken a leaf out of Lord Bingham of Cornhill's 'Speech to Justice' titled "The Evolving Constitution" that he delivered on October 4, 2001 in London.
While defining first principles which provide a touchstone - not a conclusive test, but a touchstone - in deciding whether a reform or proposed reform points in the right direction or a wrong one, Lord Bingham, who is also widely known for disputing the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK and other countries, had argued that decisions affecting the life and activities of the citizen should, generally speaking, be made at the lowest level of government consistent with economy, convenience and rational conduct of public affairs.
The second principle, according to him, is that the legislature should broadly reflect the opinion of voters, including those "in a significant lawful minority". Thirdly, the laws of the land should be justly administered by judges and magistrates who are, and are seen to be, separate from and independent of both the legislature and the executive. It is a measure of the parliamentarians' maturity that despite reservation which some of them had expressed over provisions like the new name for the NWFP and the striking down of 4th section of Article 17 requiring political parties to hold internal elections, they supported the 18th Amendment with one voice.
The adoption of the 18th Amendment is an achievement second only to the passage of the 1973 Constitution. Once the Senate passes the amendment also, the country would be back to parliamentary democracy with Prime Minister playing the most important role in the administration. This is a big achievement, insofar as this amendment in fact goes beyond simply restoring the 1973 Constitution as it retains some of the later day's additions recommended in the Charter of Democracy like joint electorates, lowering the age of voters to 18 years and reserved seats for minorities and women. The much-debated issue of the composition of the judicial commission, which is to appoint the judges of superior courts, has also been amicably resolved, effecting another improvement in the Constitution.
With PPP's Mian Raza Rabbani heading the constitutional amendment committee and the government providing unreserved support to the amendment, the party can rightly claim credit for bringing the constitution back to its original form. When Chaudhry Nisar praised President Zardari on Thursday, he was in fact conceding the point. While the critics accused the PPP leadership of foot-dragging on the amendment, it was soon realised that amending the constitution was really a Herculean task as it required a consensus among all parliamentary parties; it was no willy-nilly tinkering. There were conflicting views among political parties on numerous issues such as form and scope of provincial autonomy and a new name for the NWFP.
The opposition too deserves credit because it continued to remind the government that as a signatory to the CoD it was morally bound to bring about the constitutional reforms. There is a perception that but for the insistence on the part of the opposition the government might have continued to delay the reforms. With the reforms committee having discussed the various issues for nine months, the amendment was passed without many debates. The expectation that the parliament would further improve the amendment after an in-depth evaluation of the provisions was not fulfilled. There is a perception that if the issue of a new name for the NWFP was to be discussed thoroughly in the two houses rather than decided by the leaders of the ANP and PML-N, a better solution could have been found, and the unrest that has gripped a number of districts in the NWFP could have been avoided. Similarly, the determination of the quantum of provincial autonomy after a thorough debate in parliament might have led to a better formula more acceptable to the smaller provinces.
The adoption of the 18th Amendment is a good beginning. Changing circumstances and emergence of new realities will continue to warrant amendments in the constitution because it is, arguably, an evolving constitution; and these nine months constitute a period of unusual constitutional quiescence in the political history of the country. The passage of 18th Amendment in the National Assembly clearly and unambiguously demonstrates the fact that our constitution neither is nor should be static and immobile. A number of nationalist leaders in Sindh and Balochistan have demanded further expansion of provincial autonomy. They argue that unless provinces have full control over their financial resources autonomy will continue to remain elusive.
Sindh Progressive Alliance called for a province-wide strike to press for provincial autonomy in line with the 1940 Resolution. On Thursday, hundreds of students from South Punjab rallied outside Parliament House, demanding the creation of a Seraiki province. In a number of districts in Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa, protestors have taken to streets calling for the creation of a Hazara province. Hopefully, the issues would be debated in days to come.
Many had expected that FATA would be given a provincial status or made a part of the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa. This would have provided representation to the area in the provincial legislature and the National Assembly besides accelerating its socio-economic development. What is more, it would have got rid of the outmoded FCR and benefited from the judicial system prevailing in the rest of the country! One hopes that this issue too will remain open for debate. The proposal, that the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms should not be disbanded and should instead be allowed to work on the next draft of changes, has to be given consideration. This brings to mind the words of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of American Independence. As Jefferson observed, "Laws and institutes must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... we might as well require a man to wear the coat that fitted him as a boy, as civilised society to remain under the regime of our elders."