Constitutions are basic laws that govern the exercise of power and provide checks on it. It is through these that a state is formed and governed. The Constitution of the United States of America, for example is the clearest visualisation of the social contract between its people. What distinguishes constitutions from other laws is a presumption of permanence or “entrenchment”. In most countries, constitutions may only be amended through “super majorities.”

Unlike many countries that have had a singular social contract between their people throughout their existence, Pakistan has had three constitutions in less than a century of its existence. The first of these was the Constitution of 1956, wherein a federal parliamentary republic was formed pursuant to the Objectives Resolution. Its federalist structure is often described by commentators as “coming-together federalism”. This indicated that nearly all the formerly Indian Muslim majority provinces came together to form a federation and that the social contract was between these units, rather than directly among the people.

Problems emerged however as leaders of West Pakistan were unwilling to let the eastern part of the new country, which constituted a majority of the population, have the power to rule. The social contract proved extremely ineffective in taming the state of nature in Pakistan. Four short-lived governments were followed by a proclamation of emergency by President Iskander Mirza and the usurpation of power by Gen Ayub Khan.

The new leader imposed his own constitution, reverting from a federalist to a two-unit system. The 1962 constitution had no particular federal structure. An electoral college for president was created in the form of basic democracies. This social contract was also doomed as it failed to address the inequities that had resulted in the breakdown of the one. The feeling of disenfranchisement among the people of East Pakistan remained. The break-up of the country was inevitable after the Awami League, which swept the 1970 election, was not allowed to form the government.

The current constitution came about in the aftermath of a bloody war and secession of Bangladesh. Unlike the previous constitutions, it has survived in one form or another. Learning from the mistakes of the 196os, federalism was restored in 1973.

However, the 1973 federalism was dissimilar to its 1956 version. This time around, federalism was meant to “hold the nation together.” Over the nearly five decades, the Constitution of Pakistan has been amended twenty-four times (excluding extra-constitutional orders in this regard). Many of the amendments were eventually reversed by subsequent amendments. However, two important amendments have survived and fundamentally altered the social contract of 1973.

Unlike many countries Pakistan has had three constitutions in less than a century of its existence.

The first of these was the Third Amendment, legislated in 1975. After winning the elections in 1973, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party found itself in murky waters. The amendment was enacted to abridge the protection against preventive detention by amending Article 10 of the Constitution. Originally, the article had excluded the protections contained therein through the proviso to Article 10 (7) in case of a person acting on instructions received from the enemy.

The scope of the exclusion was now expanded to include a person “who is acting or attempting to act in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof or who commits or attempts to commit any act which amounts to an anti-national activity as defined in a Federal law or is a member of any association which has for its objects, or which indulges in, any such anti-national activity”. This may be one of the first fundamental alterations in the social contract, through which the state procured for itself more power than it was granted in the original arrangement. The government could now effectively detain its political rivals, by enacting a federal law proscribing the content of their activism as “anti-national” and denying them the protections previously afforded to them – against such preventive detention – by Article 10 of the Constitution. It is hoped that this draconian amendment is eventually reversed to tilt the balance in favour of due process, rather than tyranny.

The second major amendment that has survived so far was the 18th Amendment. Since the original arrangement of 1973 succeeded a unitary system of government, it envisioned a decade-long compromise under which legislation and administration of certain laws remained in concurrent jurisdiction of the Federation and the Provinces. The subjects that would naturally fall within the plenary powers of provinces were thus listed on the concurrent legislative list. Both Federal and Provincial Legislatures could legislate on such subjects, provided that in case of a conflict the federal law would be supreme.

However, the promise of a review remained unfulfilled and the concurrent list survived for more than three decades. The Eighteenth Amendment was brought about to fulfill the promise and realign governance with the original vision. Among other changes, it abolished the concurrent legislative list. It also gave the North-Western Frontier Province its new name: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It took away the president’s power in Article 58 (2) (b) to dissolve elected assemblies. The amendment also expanded the definition of High Treason in Article 6 to include “suspension of the Constitution”, granted the right to a fair trial and right to free education through Articles 10-A and 25-A, respectively, and mandated devolution of power to the local government level by enacting Article 140-A. Amending over a hundred articles of the Constitution, the Eighteenth Amendment is undoubtedly the most significant alteration to the social contract. In many respects it represents a great leap towards achieving effectiveness for the original vision of the Federation. It has been argued that it is because of the 18th Amendment that the governments elected after 2008, have been able to complete their tenures, unlike those before them.

While we may still be far away from achieving the full purpose of the social contract, it is safe to say that we have come a long way through various amendments to the Constitution.

The writer is a graduate of the Columbia University and a High Court Advocate. He can be reached on Twitter at @shahmeer3192