The 27th Amendment has several potential benefits. By creating the Federal Constitutional Court, it aims to resolve constitutional disputes more efficiently and reduce the workload of the Supreme Court. The merger of the COAS and CDF roles provides clearer military leadership, which can improve coordination, decision-making and overall national security management. Supporters also argue that these changes may contribute to greater political stability by clarifying lines of authority and reducing institutional conflicts.
However, the amendment also carries notable risks. Critics warn that it could concentrate power in the hands of a few, undermine judicial independence and reduce accountability for top officials, which may threaten democratic governance and weaken institutional checks. To address these risks, it is essential to strengthen checks and balances, safeguard the autonomy of the judiciary, ensure transparency in executive decisions and maintain robust legal oversight mechanisms.
Areeba Awan
Lahore
*****
This letter refers to the article ‘Myth vs reality’ (November 16, 2025) by Dr Farrukh Saleem. Improvisation ought to remain a consistent principle across various sectors, including governance. Drawing on Dr Farrukh’s comparison between myth and reality, the reforms linked to the 27th Amendment appear to be a constructive step toward reinforcing the governance framework, particularly in light of external hostilities from neighbouring states.
Ultimately, adaptability in governance is not just a matter of administrative efficiency but a strategic necessity. By embracing reforms that clarify command structures and strengthen institutional resilience, the state signals both stability to its allies and deterrence to its rivals. In an era where challenges evolve rapidly, improvisation ensures that governance remains responsive, credible and capable of safeguarding national interests.
Anas A Khan
Edmonton
Canada
