onstitutional debates are often complicated and hard to follow for those not trained in legal speak. However, there is something simple and well understood by everyone, lawyer and non-lawyer alike: a democracy requires regular and frequent recourse to the people to choose representative governments. Few articles of the constitution can be clearer than Article 224. It requires that where an assembly completes its term, general elections must be held within 60 days, and where an assembly is dissolved earlier (prior to the ending of its term), the elections must be held in 90 days.

When the provincial assemblies of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were dissolved in January 2023, the Supreme Court also held that elections must be conducted within 90 days. Lost in a distracting debate – deliberately launched by the ruling coalition – about 4-3 or 3-2, was the larger point that even the preferred verdict of the ruling coalition gave no carte blanche to delay elections beyond 90 days. The Lahore High Court had already issued an order requiring elections within 90 days.

Yet, we saw 90 days come and go. Caretaker governments created in the provinces of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the purposes of conducting general elections have become permanent governments, unelected by the people and unaccountable to them. As the National Assembly concludes its term, the prime minister has advised the dissolution three days earlier than mandated to squeeze in 30 extra days before an election must be held.

Also, four days before the dissolution, the outgoing prime minister summoned a meeting of the Council of Common Interests to approve the results of the 7^th Population Census. The CCI is a constitutional forum for formulating and regulating policies on important matters where all the provinces are to be represented. The CCI rubber-stamped the census results. The provinces of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa represented through caretaker chief ministers despite the fact that Section 230 of the Elections Act 2017 explicitly restricts the caretaker governments from taking major policy decisions, except when those are urgent.

Approving a census is an important policy decision. Given the proximity to general elections, it is unclear that an urgency justified the mandate of the caretaker governments to take such a decision.

The implications of this decision have become immediately apparent: it is yet another ploy to delay the general elections. Article 51 of the constitution requires that seats in the National Assembly be apportioned on the basis of the “last preceding census officially published.” These seats are specified in the constitution itself. Changing them requires a constitutional amendment, which is not possible when there is no National Assembly in session. Similarly, Section 17(2) of the Elections Act imposes a duty on the Election Commission of Pakistan to conduct fresh delimitation of constituencies after the publication of a census.

Thus, the last-minute approval of the census by the CCI has created a constitutional crisis and wriggle room for the Election Commission of Pakistan to seek a further delay to the general elections. In the meanwhile, a caretaker federal government can hold office indefinitely, replicating a model successfully piloted in the provinces of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Interestingly, the concept of a caretaker governments was alien to the constitution as originally enacted. It was first introduced by a military dictator, Gen Zia-ul Haq through the Revival of Constitution Order, 1985. Their ostensible constitutional purpose is to be neutral between political parties so as to avoid controversy that an incumbent political party has used its position to sway elections in its favour. Today, it seems that unelected forces are yet again poised to use caretaker governments to deprive the people of their voice.

As the Supreme Court of Pakistan has recently held in the elections case, conducting elections is “one of the most important tasks in any democracy.” The constitution does not envisage caretaker governments as anything other than a stop-gap measure with the sole objective of ensuring a smooth democratic transition of power. The very edifice of the constitution rests on this. This is not an exaggeration. The constitution begins with a preamble containing an expression of the will of the people of Pakistan. The very first desire expressed by them is to establish an order where the state exercises its power and authority “through the chosen representatives of the people.”

It is obligatory on the constitutional organs charged with the duty to conduct elections to perform their functions in a manner that advances the constitutional purpose rather than frustrating it. Under Article 218 of the constitution, the Election Commission of Pakistan has a duty to conduct elections honestly, justly and fairly in accordance with law. The ECP relied on this article to delay elections in March. These desirable attributes of an election (honest, just and fair) are not meant to be reasons to delay indefinitely the primary duty: the actual conduct of elections.

While agreeing on a constitution in 1973, the people of Pakistan dedicated themselves to the “preservation of democracy achieved by the unremitting struggle of the people against oppression and tyranny.” Having so dedicated themselves, the people have proven their resilience by restoring and preserving the constitution despite periods of deviation. It would be a fool’s errand to test the resolve of the people yet again.

The writer is a Lahore based lawyer. He tweets at @sameerkhosa