Invariably, the constitution of a functional democracy is an admixture of time-honoured maxim of one man one vote, and the complex ground realities including socio-political aspirations of its people, geostrategic compulsions dictated by its setting and reflection of history culminating in its existence as an independent member of the international community. Every country has its own peculiar existence, and therefore no two constitutions are copies of each other. These specific realities keep evolving, dictated as these are by the march of time, necessitating tinkering with the basic document called the constitution to remain relevant to people's needs and aspirations. What we have today as the basic document is third in order and has been amended at the rate of one every second year. As we celebrate the third Constitution Day there is a call from the Senate that the constitution should be amended once again and that should be by giving it more powers. As the debate progressed on this demand tribute was made to the Indian constitution, not that it didn't sync with the mood of time but also because in there the contemporary is as powerless as a beggar on the street. Then the so-called Establishment, which some call the deep state, but many more here see it as our men in uniform, came in for rough rubbing. The first two constitutions were no doubt abrogated by army generals; if the third one is also under threat just because two of Asif Ali Zardari's aides remain missing - we don't see it that way. Those constitutions were abrogated by two individuals in uniform, but nurtured particular mindsets and political ideologies, that didn't necessarily reflect the position and judgement of the institutions they belonged to. And as we harken to the past let us not forget that as they came on stage they were welcomed and garlanded, not only by the general public but also by hordes of political leaders. Is it not reality that some of the members who sit in today's Senate were close confidants of yet another dictator?

One would have no beef with the call for more powers to the Senate. But that transformation must be within the confines of established norms of democracy and not be incompatible with the challenges of time the country is presently confronted with. There should also introspection to find out if all that led to legislation of the 18th Constitutional Amendment was the need of the time and the people, and that while the parliament succeeded in lending legitimacy to the illegal political inheritance of the lawmakers then, it failed to clean up Articles 62 and 63 of the absurdity in there. That the Senate is House of Federation, there is no dispute. Arguably, were there bicameralism and an ambience of participatory federalism in Pakistan its East Wing would not have broken away. But was it the only insufficiency, especially now when Indian prime minister Narendra Modi has openly confessed his country's role in the breakup of Pakistan and his declared intention now to work on a similar mission in Balochistan. As we nurture positive sentiments for stronger federalism in Pakistan we should not forget that democracy, quintessentially, is based on the principle of one man one vote, each federating unit is equal in terms of the rights its residents must enjoy but unequal in terms of distribution of resources. By equating the powers of the Senate with those of the National Assembly you would run afoul of the democratic lynchpin of one man one vote. What is needed is putting in place good governance that should ensure prompt delivery on the rights guaranteed to citizens irrespective of the place of their residence. One would think that instead of asking for more neat political power the upper house of our parliament should be asking for effective execution of the local government system, mainly by asking the provincial governments to surrender the space that belongs to this third tier of governance.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2017