Region 
 

Islamabad

Amending the Amendment?

The 18th Amendment failed to transfer power to the grassroots level by providing a full constitutional cover to the local government system

By Muhammad Waqar Rana | March 2026


The parliament passed the 18th Amendment on April 20, 2010. It was meant to restore the 1973 Constitution to its original form. The Amendment granted autonomy to the provinces in financial and administrative matters by fixing their share in the National Financial Award and making them co-sharers in oil, gas, and natural resources, and by abolishing the concurrent legislative list. After more than 15 years of its passing, there is now a debate going on that the 18th Amendment caused strains on the finances of the Federal Government, and there were also administrative difficulties faced by the Federal Government while dealing with vital issues.

It is explained below that there were several serious pitfalls in the Amendment, but any attempt to repeal/amend the Constitution to further the principles of the Constitution would require deep reflection and open debate, particularly when many workable alternatives are available to address the problems of the Federal Government.

A constitution must live up to the challenges of its times and aspirations of the people without undermining or changing the underlying values of democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights, and independence of the judiciary, which are the hallmark of liberal democracies. A change in the constitutional scheme is usually achieved through an amendment for which a procedure is provided within the constitution.

Constitutional interpretation is another way of changing the constitution by giving new meanings to the letters of the constitution according to the priorities of the values set out in the constitution, but the fundamentals of the constitution are to be preserved. Any amendment to the Constitution needs to be made after deliberation and debate, and people must remain the final guardians of the Constitution through their vote. The US Constitution has had 27 amendments ratified in more than two hundred years (33 amendments proposed). The Indian Constitution had 106 amendments as of January 2026. The Australian Constitution (1905) had 8 amendments as of 2026. It is indeed a serious business.

Pakistan’s experience of constitutionalism and constitution-making has not been very promising. Its independence was conditional upon the framing of a constitution under the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and that showed the very importance of the constitution in the life of a newborn nation. The final draft of the constitution was ready to be tabled in October 1954, but the Constituent Assembly was dissolved, which led to an unending constitutional crisis that perennially derailed Pakistan from the paths of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Its dominion status ended with Pakistan’s first constitution that came into force in March 1956. The constitution was tragically abrogated in 1958 without even putting it into operation, declared as unworkable. No elections were held thereunder. The 1962 Constitution was abrogated in 1969.

The Present constitution was adopted on 12 April 1973, in the aftermath of several setbacks in our constitutional history. It was the result of a compromise and the best document possible in those troubling times. The LFO of 1970 had already placed limitations on the constitution-making powers of the elected Assembly tasked with the framing of the constitution.

The National Assembly elected in the 1970 general elections had 313 members, but the constitution was framed and adopted by 139 out of 146 members (after the creation of Bangladesh) who attended the historic session of the National Assembly. The legitimacy of the constitution was questioned, and it was saved from perishing away by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which provided a legal cover to the constitution. The National Assembly enacted a provision (Article 6) that closed the door of abrogation forever by declaring it an act of high treason. Less than pious means were always available to deviate from it. Perhaps our land was barren for constitutionalism. There was a practice of tailoring the constitutions or amendments according to expedience.


The martial law regimes of 1977 and 1999 amended the constitution several times, which changed its original scheme and ethos. The Amendment’s objective was to restore the Constitution to its original form and purge it from all interpolations. The Amendment tried to follow the Charter of Democracy (2006), signed in London by the heads of two major political parties living in exile. Lofty claims made in the COD remained foreclosed as political expediencies and self-interests had a field day. Almost one hundred provisions of the Constitution were amended or substituted through the Amendment, but there was nothing therein for the people that could change their lot. Power and not the people were the primary motive behind the Amendment.

The Amendment granted provincial autonomy, which was, however, against the international trends in view of a new global order that demanded a strong federation. Some new fundamental rights were introduced through the Amendment, but existing rights (freedoms of speech and Assembly) clipped during the martial regimes were not restored to their original forms. The Amendment failed to transfer power to the grassroots level by providing a full constitutional cover to the local government system, although some powers were devolved to the local governments under the newly added Article 140A.

No financial powers were given or transferred to the local governments, and the provincial governments remained the masters of the purses and elections. There was no provision for the provincial finance commissions.

The provincial share under the Award remained at the discretion of provincial governments in the absence of any provision for the Appropriation Acts. The abolition of the concurrent legislative list and reduction of federal share therein (by making NFC award unchangeable downwards) put pressure on the Federal Government, which had to manage the defense and debt service. It eventually resulted in heavy taxation by the federation, making people’s lives hard.

If the purpose of the amendment was to empower the provinces financially, that could be achieved through other means. Independent taxation power could be conferred on the provinces, although they already had huge taxing power in the form of transferred sales tax on services, land revenue, stamp duty, and taxes on immovable property. The provinces also had residuary tax powers.

The abolition of the concurrent legislative list that had the wisdom and working of many decades caused unnecessary confusion and led to unending litigation. The joint ownership of oil, gas, and other precious minerals created further strains on the federation.

Ordinance-making power, which was a relic of colonial times, conferred legislative powers on the executive, and it got legislative oversight. Similarly, the emergency powers of the federation needed approval of the provincial assemblies and parliament. The Senate was given some role in financial matters by adding Article 73 (1) A without any voting power.

Since the passing of the Amendment, several amendments have been made to the Constitution. The constitution and its values stand diluted in view of the changed political and constitutional framework. The 18th Amendment, despite its pitfalls, was a positive step in the right direction. The object of provincial autonomy should have been to empower people rather than to save political interests. The local government system with financial powers needed to be embedded in the constitution with elaborate provisions. Financial independence of the provinces could be ensured by granting them independent taxing power, and the archaic system of financial awards had to be done away with.

The people of Pakistan have come a long way since they voted for its creation by giving a mandate to the founding fathers. They pledged to provide them with social, political, and economic justice through a constitutional order. These ideals remain unrealized. In the ultimate analysis, the salvation of the people rests with constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Read More