The Senate’s approval of the 27th Constitutional Amendment on Monday might be remembered less for its content and more for its speed. The bill, which was pushed through amid protests, walkouts and loud slogans, raises serious questions about how laws of such magnitude should be made. With 64 lawmakers voting in favour and opposition benches empty after a walkout, the outcome was never in doubt.
But what does it say about the health of our democracy when consensus is replaced by counting heads? No one can deny that reforms to improve the judiciary and balance powers between institutions are needed. Yet, the manner in which this bill was rushed through the Upper House sends the wrong message. Debate in Parliament is meant to build trust and bridge differences, not to outnumber the other side. When copies of the bill are torn and thrown, and opposition members leave in anger, the process loses its dignity, and the people lose faith in their representatives.
The government insists that the amendment fulfils the “unfinished agenda” of the Charter of Democracy and brings clarity to judicial powers through a Federal Constitutional Court. It also introduces the rank of field marshal into the Constitution, giving legal shape to a symbolic military honour. Supporters call it historic; critics call it hasty.
Both may have a point. But true reform demands patience, not political triumphs scored in a single afternoon. The Senate is meant to be a chamber of calm reflection, not a theatre of one-sided applause. Major constitutional changes deserve time, consultation, and cross-party understanding, especially when they touch the judiciary and military, two of the most sensitive pillars of the state. Pakistan’s political leadership must realise that laws made without agreement often deepen divisions. *