The concept of parliamentary supremacy emerged in Great Britain through a long evolutionary process when parliament as an institution was unheard of. According to this system, parliament is the supreme institution in the country. No other institution is above parliament as it is the creator of all institutions, including the monarch or queen. Parliament can make any law through a simple majority. There is no difference between an ordinary law and an act of parliament or a formal constitutional amendment. A written constitution is not required in a true, original and genuine parliamentary form of political system, such as in the UK.
Now, we come to the concept of the supremacy of the constitution. A constitution is supreme or sovereign in a system where there is no parliament but an assembly. The concept of the supremacy of the constitution came from the United States. The constitution is supreme because it could not be amended by Congress/assembly only. The concept of government is completely different in a constitutional system such as in America, where the system is based on the concept of separation of powers with checks and balances. All three institutions of a government i.e., the legislature, the executive and the judiciary work independently within their defined parameters. In American judicial history, there have been instances when the Supreme Court declared the laws enacted by Congress and actions taken by the executive null and void.
Finally, we come to mixed systems. Generally, mixed systems are prevalent in Third World countries e.g., India and Pakistan. The Indian political system is also a replica of the British parliamentary system but India also has a written Constitution. Both in India and Pakistan, all political institutions get their powers from the written Constitution. According to both the Constitutions, the superior judiciary has the power to nullify any law passed by parliament. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared laws passed by parliament unconstitutional. But the right of the judiciary to declare any law unconstitutional does not make the Constitution supreme because parliament can amend the Constitution.
The Indian Supreme Court, in the mid-1970s, declared amendments to the Constitution unconstitutional on the basis that they were repugnant to the basic structure of the constitution principle. According to the Indian SC’s decision, some basic provisions of the Constitution are superior to some other provisions of the same Constitution. So, the laws and constitutional amendments should also be in accordance with those superior Articles. Similarly in Pakistan, the Eighteenth Amendment was challenged in the SC. Keeping in mind the short judgment and the rulings of the judges and the opinions of the legal community, it is assumed that there are also some superior Articles of the Constitution, which are the basic structure of the Constitution. Some people think that the SC of Pakistan can also declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional on the basis of the basic structure principle. On the other hand, the American constitutional and the British parliamentary systems fail to recognise such kind of basic structure. According to the American system, the whole constitution itself is the basic structure; the American Constitution contains seven Articles, which all carry same weight and no single provision is superior to any other provision of the Constitution.
If we look at the history of Pakistan, we see that we unfortunately failed to establish both the supremacy of parliament and supremacy of the Constitution. Historically speaking, these two concepts failed to assert as a political system in the country. In addition, the debate or clash among political institutions over the supremacy issue is irrelevant and premature. The real issue is the supremacy of the civilians over the armed forces. In a strong and stable democracy, the armed forces are under the control of civilian leadership. The military could take over if the clash between these two civilian institutions persists.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 25th, 2012.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Military take over is better than Military calling the shots behind closed doors. They created this mess so they should come out and clean it.
One can hardly argue that civil-miltary power balance is heavily tilted in favour of army,However begging the powerful to let go of it's power is not going to work,asking a foreign power to coerce it into submission is disgusting. To become powerful political parties will have to get their acts right and rise upto it;our current political leadership's lack of mental capacity and integrity hardly affords any hope of this rise.Only a political government working for the welfare of people and performing well on socioeconomic front will be able to to restore this balance,because they will have the power of people behind them. Maligning you powerful foe does not get you anywhere you have to rise upto it's level. PPP-Z political card has been that of maligning the oppoents rather than their own performance,which of course is abysmal.
A state is nothing but a set of inter-locking institutional relationships and arrangements. The state is not simply a government its something created out of the relationship between such institutions.
no institution in Pakistan is ready to understand their limits, every one has set their own proclivities and consider it a right track.
even now, military calls the shots.
That was the setup from day one, organized by a section of the uniformed men. They needed another pretext to sell the next 'coup de etat'.
@good2rely:
Soviets were not invaders but were invited by the then secular Afghan government of Nur Muhammad Taraki, to help stabilize their internal conflicts as they were facing revolts and civil war from the ring wing & mullahs during 1979 along with rivalry with his previous colleagues that subsequently let to his murder. President Nur Muhammad Taraki formed "Communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan" and his reforms let to Civil War.. He tried many times to persuade USSR to intervene but failed.
It's not internal or external situation but greed for government and power that leads to the intervene of Generals.
Musharraf had nothing to do with Afghan issue as he over threw the then elected government in Oct 1999 there were no external reasons for it at the time.
informative
My personel view is sc must have an upper hand in deciding whether any further legislation in constitution is in line with the fundamentals of constitution or not particulary in a society where democracy has not mateured to a satisfactory point.While it is quiet possible that some rouge elements in parliament might succed in persuing innocent public for some kind of legislation.compltely voilating the fundamentals of the constitution for their vested.(and there is a history of that) intrests.Unfortunetly sc court has to this date, failed in defending the basic human rights of it's citizens envisaged in constitutions:.
@Lala Gee:
In Pakistan the Army comes at Crucial times(mostly)
Zia had to face Soviet incursion thru to Afghanistan to reach Oil countries via Baluchistan.First he fought alone and then got support from Sauds and US. Taliban created in the name of Faith and needed at that time as no other way out.He was killed by vested interest before he could manage them after end of war. US left them alone and orphan once purpose was served
Afghan issue again brought Musharraf...Pressure dig him deep. He should have said that Friend or Foe is between two equals...so make it a Deal/bargain. No aid. Without Pak how personnels and money u lose...and how u compensate for Pak loss. How much ammunition offered comparing u go alone.
Under pressure he passed NRO and opned Pandoras box. Now Politicians and Judiciary tussle and Parties who always say ....we dont agree on anything....even if Angels come.....so army..... force keep them at bay.
What a great scholarly Op Ed by a young law scholar. We need more such people to tell the truth to the public. You used a common sense language and simple facts to bring out the truth in the contemporary democracies. As a scholar you did the right thing, bring the facts out and let the readers make the conclusions. Your last paragraph is powerful when you say "we unfortunately failed to establish both the supremacy of parliament and supremacy of the Constitution." The question is who has been breaking the constitution and the parliament repeatedly without any consequences? Unless this huge power drunk army is not brought under civilian control there would be more surrenders of E. Pakistan and situations in Baluchistan and FATA, to name a few. Those who blame the civilians for the army takeover are like Israelis blaming Palestinians for not going for peace talks for the creating of independent Palestine. By some rightwing ideologues it is always the victims who are responsible not the oppressors.
Time is over for the failed democracy which has propelled criminals in the position of power. Judiciary is more interested in politics than justice. “Democracy in Pakistan is the government off the people; buy the people, far from the people”. It is a system which supports moneyed class, feudal, judges and bureaucrats. It has nothing to offer to the poor people. Government has failed to protect the basic rights of the people of Pakistan, like life, property, honor, and failed to provide services like health and education. Armed Forces should move forward to save the people and State of Pakistan. This is their national obligation and duty.
@Author:
"Historically speaking, these two concepts failed to assert as a political system in the country. In addition, the debate or clash among political institutions over the supremacy issue is irrelevant and premature. The real issue is the supremacy of the civilians over the armed forces"
Quite informative article. I know one thing, that all the failures of Pakistan are due to these corrupt, characterless, and incompetent political leaders. They always provided ground for military to take over and people welcomed them whenever they did. The only way to get military under civilian control is to deliver good governance and limit corruption to the lowest levels.
You wrote such a brilliant article but somehow ended with an abrupt unexpected ending. Its not that the conclusion is problematic, it's just the arguments presented were heading in a specific direction and conclusion came out of nowhere. It would have been wiser to take up the last piece in a separate article.