Checks and Balances: The Future of Democracy in Pakistan
- Significance of Checks and Balances: Montesquieu’s principle prevents authoritarianism, promotes accountability, and protects fundamental human rights by ensuring power is distributed and regulated among branches of government.
- Impact of Pakistan's 26th Amendment: The amendment compromises judicial independence by allowing the government to influence Chief Justice appointments and curbing Suo Moto powers.
- Call for Reforms: To preserve democracy and governance integrity, Pakistan must address these imbalances and restore the judiciary's autonomy.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” James Madison clearly described the importance of “checks and balances” in limiting the power of any single branch of government, as stated in The Federalist Paper No. 51, USA. Power is the ability to influence, control, or exert authority over individuals, groups, or institutions. Due to its immense potential, power can be misused to suppress people and institutions. But it can still be checked by the power itself. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, the passage of the 26th Amendment has raised questions about the country’s checks and balances system. In this article, we will explore the philosophical background of the “check and balance” system and its significance. Also, an analysis of the 26th Amendment on Pakistan’s check and balance system will be presented.
Before learning its significance, we must understand its philosophical aspect. The idea of the “check and balance system” was coined by Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu. In his book “The Spirit of the Law (1748),” he remarks how liberty is dependent on this principle. His words: “There can be no liberty where the judiciary power is not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” According to Montesquieu, each organ of the three-tier administration must be independent, and he asserts that power should not be concentrated in a single body, and each organ has a check on others to maintain liberty, equality, and accountability. He advises: “Power should be a check to power.” The theory has been adopted by all modern republics (his legacy). The USA was the first to adopt this idea. In its political system, every organ has a check on the others to limit totalitarianism. For example, the USA’s president can appoint judges, but the appointments must be ratified by the Senate. This highlights the importance of checks and balances in maintaining stability and order in the political system.
To fully understand the principle of “Power checks Power,” we must acknowledge its significance. First, the idea deters any rise of authoritarianism. Since each branch has a check, no tier can undermine other institutions. For example, in the USA, the president can be impeached by Congress in case of severe violations and the abuse of power, sustaining balance in the executive and legislative powers. Second, checks and balances strengthen accountability in the political system of a country. Neglecting the principle can lead to severe consequences, which vary across countries. For example, in December 2024, the National Assembly of South Korea initiated impeachment against its president for imposing martial law to control the opposition and the Parliament.
The “check and balance system” is crucial to preserve and protect fundamental human rights. Concentrating all power in one organ increases the tendency to abuse it. However, having other proactive organs can protect the fundamental rights of humans. For instance, in India, in the case “Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala (1973),” the court upheld that the Parliament can’t amend the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution (1949). All these points underpin the importance of having the “Checks and Balances system” in preventing the rise of dictatorship, maintaining and upholding accountability, and guarding human rights, dignity, and esteem.
However, Pakistan has historically been experiencing trouble in maintaining “Checks and Balances” among its institutions. On 20th October, the 26th Amendment was passed. The amendment has altered the role of the judiciary in the country. For example, the appointment of the chief justice is now dependent on the Special Parliamentary Committee, which consists of 12 members. The committee does not follow the parity rule for distributing seats between the opposition and the government. Instead, the seats are to be divided based on proportional representation, a party’s seats in the Parliament.
Now, the government with a majority can place a Chief Justice of its own choice. Additionally, the Chief Justice must now be selected from the top three justices of the Supreme Court. This could impact the psychology of judges, leading them to focus more on serving politicians rather than providing unbiased justice. Similarly, the government has stripped the Chief Justice of the power to take Suo Moto actions (Article 184(3)). It seems that the government has subordinated the judiciary to the legislative and the executive tiers, ignoring the system of checks and balances. Concentrating too much power in one branch can be catastrophic for the political development of the country.
In conclusion, Montesquieu’s checks and balances system is crucial for maintaining balance and harmony in the political system. However, Pakistan’s 26th amendment has undermined the independence of the judiciary, placing it under the influence of the branches. Pakistan needs to learn lessons from its history to understand what is truly important and what is not.
The author is a chemical engineer.
