Constitutions articulate a vision based on collective aspirations and essentially outline a mission statement that reflects national confidence in the ability to realise the mission.

A mission statement is something a country does not write overnight. Indeed, Pakistan took about 25 years to finally nail one in 1973 that had enough clarity and purpose to make it stick despite the several subsequent attacks to undermine it, deface it and soil it.

We would be a federation to accommodate our disparate political pluralisms, we decided, and settled on representative democracy through a bicameral parliament as a vehicle to get there.

But if the mission statement becomes a constitution, the solid measure of our vision and values, and the singular criterion by which to measure the progress in our collective lives, what does the post-Constitution unceasing strife and steady disillusionment underpinning Pakistan say about either the quality of our mission statement or the success of the Constitution?

Is the Constitution flawed, or its implementation? If it’s the application at fault then is it our interpretation of it that’s defective? All these are to blame.

The Pakistani Constitution outlines ‘what’ we want but not ‘why.’ Pursuit of happiness, welfare, and indivisible equal rights for all citizens should have been the explicitly defined ‘why’. Not putting these as Article 1 of the Constitution has meant we have promised equal rights but not indivisibility of equal rights.

Ignoring happiness and welfare of people, convenient and ever-changing national interests triumph over the never-changing people’s interests. Non-Muslims are qualified as less equal than Muslims through contrary articles in the same mission document. Sovereignty has been accorded to a deity but responsibility to mortals making it easier for the latter to escape accountability in the name of the former.

Then let’s come to implementation. The same Constitution applies to the whole of Pakistan but unequal representation of several territories in the national governance structure and resource pool. Gilgit-Baltistan and AJK have no representation in national parliament. Freedom of expression, through independent media, is prohibited by law in FATA. Self-rule democracy is not allowed in FATA and cantonments across Pakistan. In short, one country, multiple systems -- is this equality? 

Then elected representatives and their offices can be called to account but accountability of armed forces and the judiciary are prohibited by both function and application of Article 19. This is convenient since both these institutions paid for by people’s taxes are the ones that have been complicit in abrogation, suspension, and mutation of the Constitution and forcefully removing, hanging, disqualifying, and exiling elected leaders and dismissing their governments in violation of the Constitution.

Interpretation: Lack of clarity and explicit emphasis on mandating key matters, and outlawing of others, such as legality of parliament (army chiefs have selected and managed whole-scale puppet parliaments), removal of heads of government and state (only through a no-confidence vote or impeachment rather than through judges and generals) and mandatory elected local governments allow for state institutions and non-state or illegal behaviour by legal entities to be given equal footing (for example Taliban, PAT and PTI).

The Constitution should not be a piece of paper that you can tear up and throw at imaginary dogs that will wag their tails happily as soldier Zia sneered. Nor should it be one that used state fiat to decide on the authenticity of people’s faith as politician Bhutto did. It should be one that allows all peoples all rights to pursue happiness and welfare above everything else. Time for a People’s Amendment now.