Despite the country being hit by the pandemic COVID-19, the government of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is continuing its relief efforts but is also considering the commencement of a debate on striking down the 18th Amendment to its Constitution. In past 12 years, Pakistan has observed that provincial Governments are enjoying full autonomy and power because of the 18th Amendment. Federation has very little say in development of provinces. On the other hand, Mafias are taking undue advantage from this situation and are more centric towards bankrupting Pakistan. Keeping in view the prevailing scenario due to this amendment, it is high time to rethink on this subject and a comprehensive agreement is made in which federation has authority to directly intervene in important public service sectors to share dividends of development to every citizen of Pakistan. This objective can only be achieved when everybody is on board. No decision can be taken unilaterally; the floor of the house in the Parliament must be used to debate the issue. While the PPP and PML (N) may oppose it because they are the original protagonists who affected the change, keeping biases aside, the 18th Amendment is up for review. The country’s financial woes are being blamed upon the 18th Amendment stripping the Federal Government of its autonomy, which is being exploited by vested interests. The outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19 has exposed the fissures, which need to be bridged. There is no guarantee that the unitary or presidential form of government will be the panacea of all of Pakistan’s political and financial problems. Neither can totalitarian regimes ensure long-term political and financial stability There are some positive aspects of the 18th Amendment which should be retained e.g. rescinding the 17th Amendment imposed by General Musharraf’s government that had undermined parliament. It returned the powers to parliament by removing Article 58(2)(b) that gave the president the power to sack an elected prime minister. Some political observers opine that 18th Amendment provides the provinces with strong legislative and financial autonomy. Herein lies the rub because there have been some problems of capacity and coordination between the centre and the provinces, but provincial autonomy has turned the country into a true federation by removing the basic cause of friction among the provinces on the distribution of resources. The problem does not lie in the legislation but in the modus operandi of devolution of power to local governments. Unfortunately, the political parties, which are the greatest champions of provincial autonomy, are not willing to devolve power to the lower tier. It needs to be seen whether the administrative and financial autonomy granted to the provinces under the 18th Amendment has paved the way for a confederal structure or weakened the authority of the federal government. There may be some issues related to security and finances but greater autonomy strengthens the state rather than weakening it. The issue must be perceived through the possible cause of political instability in the country which has been the over-centralized rule under military regimes. That has also been the reason for the rise of militant nationalism in parts of the country. A unitary form of government cannot essentially maintain the unity of the country. Let us give the devil its due. There is some credence to the argument that the 18th Amendment has contributed to the country’s remaining on the path of democracy with political transitions through the electoral process. There is no guarantee that the unitary or presidential form of government will be the panacea of all of Pakistan’s political and financial problems. Neither can totalitarian regimes ensure long-term political and financial stability. In fact, federalism provides greater dynamism to the system. The provincial governments are closer to the grass roots and serve the people much better. It is quintessential to note that the 18th Amendment has resulted in the restructuring of the National Finance Commission award. It increased the share of fiscal resources to the provinces to 57 per cent. The insertion of Article 160 (3A) also required that the share of the provinces in each NFC award could not be less than the share given in the previous award. The amendment also gives the control of mineral resources to the provinces, removing one of the major causes of alienation of the smaller provinces that had accused the centre of exploitation. Doubting Thomas claim that under the 18th Amendment, the transfer of a large part of fiscal resources to the provinces limits the financial space for the federal government which is responsible for defence expenditure and debt servicing that constitute the biggest chunk of the budget. Contrarily, financial experts opine that the federal government reaps the benefits of a surplus after paying for defence and debt servicing to meet other expenses. Currently the economy is in doldrums, which is not essentially the fault of the 18th Amendment. It may be argued that economy is contributory to national security but the continuation of the democratic process is equally critical. The progenitors of the 18th Amendment retained some objectionable clauses, which were the brainchild of the military dictator General Ziaul Haq like barring non-Muslims from holding the office of president. A wholesome debate may reconsider the need for a unified education system. Instead of being myopic, let us be open-minded and brush biases aside, seeking the betterment of a robust political system. The writer is a retired Group Captain of PAF. He is a columnist, analyst and TV talk show host, who has authored six books on current affairs, including three on China