he way the citizens of a country interpret its past, navigate the present and foresee its future gets reflected in its constitution. Following the emergence of Pakistan in 1947, agreeing to a constitution reflecting the aspirations of all its people was always going to be a tough task. No wonder it took the Constituent Assembly almost a decade to reach consensus on the country’s first constitution. However, constitutional advance was soon halted as a martial law was proclaimed and the military took over the government before the first general elections under the constitution could be held.

Predictably, years of confusion and uncertainty followed. In The Pakistan Paradox Christophe Jaffrelot commented: “Pakistan has gone from being a nation in search of a country to a country in search of a nation.”

The military-led government then formed a commission that came up with a draft that was proclaimed by the government as the country’s second constitution. However, this too was short lived. Its demise coincided with another martial law. Differences over the objectives and common interests had by now grown so deep that the country fell apart before the first session of the National Assembly that was also to frame the new constitution.

What was left of the country after a majority of its citizens seceded and proclaimed a new state, struggled for a while before finally adopting its third constitution which has stood the test of time and many a crisis. It has weathered coups, martial laws, amendments and restorations. What does it promise us, the citizens? More to the point, what does it deliver?

It has been claimed that the constitution and some of the laws and practices presumably under its umbrella contradict one another. This has sometimes been blamed on the role the majority religion has been assigned in the political sphere.

The national narrative of a state religion allows religious parties and makes room for majoritarian politics. Article 2-A, supported by the Objectives Resolution declares that “adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to [freely] profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.” The word ‘freely’ apparently added for special emphasis, was omitted at one stage. However, it was later reinstated, following the Eighteenth Amendment in 2010. This is a sign of prejudice against the religious minorities. It also provides a partial explanation vulnerable individuals.

While the constitution promises protection for the rights of all minorities, the implementation of laws to ensure religious freedom has not been uniform. A blatant example of this has been the abuse of the so-called blasphemy laws. These have often been (mis)used to target religious minorities and vulnerable individuals.

The development of a democratic polity has faced all kinds of difficulties including religious discrimination, sectarian conflict, persecution of religious as well as ethnic minorities and violent opposition to protection of women’s rights. The violence and threat of violence have been used to instill fear and insecurity among people and make the state vulnerable. Under religious ideology of the state and fundamental groups, the exclusion of minorities brings about persecutions of minority groups and destruction of worship places.

Democracy and democratic governance are the guiding principles of the country. However, institutional development in the country has not always been aligned with the objective. This has resulted in sustaining systems that allow corruption and inequality.

Article 19 of the constitution states that “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be the freedom of press.” The right to freedom of speech and press emerges as a defining struggle for the country, its institutions and its people. Over the years, restrictions on these rights have threatened minority groups, human rights activists, feminists and media organisations. For human rights defenders and feminists, the right to freedom of speech is highly compromised through censorship, legal procedures and harassment.

The fundamental right to security guaranteed in the constitution in the context of journalists and the media, is jeopardised through the hegemony of state ownership and arbitrary regulation. A number of journalists have been targeted, silenced, kidnapped and murdered for taking up sensitive issues.

Delving deeper, one can easily identify the dichotomy between the constitutional laws and their practical application in the country’s governance. The gulf reflects in another set of fundamental rights under Article 38 which intends to promote the social well-being of all individuals. It says, “The state shall secure the well-being of the people, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race.” This right marks all the building blocks of social justice in a society. However, gender inequality remains prevalent in the country and manifests itself in gender-based violence, gender stereotyping, lack of tolerance for gender rights’ activism and unequal access of opportunities. The authorities fails too frequently to provide vulnerable women with safe spaces. Too many cases of sexual assault and harassment continue to be reported.

What defines the constitutional arrangement for many people in Pakistan today is the weak application of its laws. For this reason, accountability has low credibility in the society. The country and its people continue to suffer. Much of the state power rests in the hands of non-representative institutions. The constitution cannot do much for the people until governance is free from the shackles of corruption.

The writer is a Liberal Arts & English Literature Major at Beaconhouse National University Lahore. She writes at (@poetrybyau) on Instagram