The ruling coalition in Pakistan is advancing the 27th Constitutional Amendment with the stated aim of addressing various governance and security issues, as well as responding to pressures within the coalition itself. As details emerge from coalition leadership, it appears that this amendment seeks to address governance gaps left by previous legislative efforts-particularly the controversial 26th Amendment-while tackling security concerns in conflict-prone areas and accommodating demands for urban autonomy.
A primary motivation for the 27th Amendment is the reintroduction of military courts in conflict areas, specifically the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and parts of Balochistan. The coalition government sees the military courts as a potential mechanism to expedite judicial processes, particularly for terrorism-related cases where civilian courts often face logistical challenges and are vulnerable to threats.
Military courts, however, bring their own set of controversies. While some argue that they can streamline the handling of insurgency cases, others warn that they undermine civilian judicial authority and may erode democratic norms. Notably, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman has voiced strong opposition, viewing the courts as an encroachment on civilian jurisdiction. This internal resistance within the coalition highlights the dilemma of balancing national security demands with democratic values, as military involvement in the judiciary could threaten civilian oversight and judicial independence.
The affirmation of the Judicial Commission because of the politicization of the whole process is a serious concern.
Addressing the anomalies of the recently introduced 26th Constitutional Amendment seems to be the other concern of coalition government. The International Commission of Jurists and other critics have condemned the amendment for undermining judicial independence and the rule of law. There are very valid reasons to be concerned with the provisions of the amendment. The affirmation of the Judicial Commission because of the politicization of the whole process is a serious concern, and, even worse, internal administrative powers to determine constitutional benches can be a ploy to influence the justice system. The very idea of controlling the appointment of chief justices and the grounds for the removal of judges simply aggravates.
The civil society, media and opposition parties have been and are still against the amendment in its current form and consider its adoption as a total disregard of the doctrine of separation of powers. On the other hand, the ruling coalition hails this as the victory of parliamentary democracy even though this amendment bypasses democratic checks and balances and encourages conflict and disintegration of institutions. Its effects would be detrimental to the democratic progress in Pakistan and would entrench the control of certain power holders. International Human Rights law must focus on promoting democracy, ensuring effective implementation of human rights treaties, and incorporating mechanisms which enhance respect for human rights within societies.
Taking the devolution process to a logical conclusion appears to be the other concern the coalition government may address through upcoming legislation. The MQM-P had conditioned its support for the 26th Constitutional Amendment with the demand to provide constitutional cover to the grassroots democracy, as enshrined in the Constitution (140-A), through financially, administratively and politically autonomous local governments.
Centralized resource control has meant that urban centres have been perennially sidelined in the way they manage infrastructure, public services and lawful planning. The amendment would allow urban centres to address these challenges on their own which could solve and control urban decay, and public service delivery. Constitutional safeguards could prove as a means of reinforcing local governance structures which have stubbornly refused to deliver economic goods, guaranteeing political unrest in urban areas will continue unless past grievances these groups feel are addressed.
The 27th Constitutional Amendment highlights the ruling coalition’s efforts to unite its diverse political allies around a shared legislative agenda. Each party within the coalition brings distinct priorities to the table, making consensus a complex but essential goal. For instance, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) have traditionally opposed any expansion of military authority into civilian matters, wary of setting precedents that could erode civilian control. Historically, both parties have resisted military involvement in judicial or administrative functions, seeing it as a threat to democratic governance.
Meanwhile, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) is focused on securing greater control over urban governance for cities like Karachi, where its political base is concentrated. For MQM-P, the priority is to achieve constitutional safeguards for local government authority, which would grant urban administrations autonomy and financial independence from provincial oversight. This would enable urban governments to better manage local services and infrastructure, a significant issue in Karachi, where centralized control has often stifled development and responsiveness.
The coalition seeks to balance these competing interests by crafting a constitutional amendment that addresses both the PPP and PML-N’s concerns about unchecked military influence and MQM-P’s push for urban empowerment. By proposing reforms that aim to improve security in conflict areas, such as allowing military courts to handle specific cases, the coalition hopes to reassure PPP and PML-N that military involvement will remain limited to areas where regular courts face challenges, like terrorism cases in former tribal regions and Balochistan.
If implemented, the 27th Amendment could reshape Pakistan’s governance landscape by addressing long-standing challenges in security and decentralization. The reintroduction of military courts in conflict-affected areas, for instance, would likely expedite judicial processes in cases involving terrorism, alleviating the pressures faced by civilian courts. Conversely, enshrining local governments within the Constitution could transform urban governance, allowing urban centres to tackle their unique urbanization challenges without provincial restrictions. Such decentralization could improve service delivery, increase political participation, and foster accountability at the local level, potentially mitigating urban grievances and reducing political tensions in major cities.
The writer is an Islamabad-based veteran journalist and an independent researcher. He can be reached on Twitter @riazmissen