Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS)

Vol. 41, No. 4 (2021), pp. 875-885

Separation of Powers:
Prerequisite for a Stable Democracy
Saima Bazmi
M. Phil. Scholar, Department of Political Science and International Relations,
University of Management and Technology, Lahore.
Email: saimabazmi3032198@gmail.com

Abeeda Qureshi
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations,
University of Management and Technology, Lahore.
Email: abeedaqureshi@hotmail.com

Abstract:
The beauty of democracy lies in the rule of separation of powers and the
principle of checks and balances. Without the principle of separation of
powers, and consequent machinery of checks and balances, the
institutions of the state will encroach into the jurisdiction of each other,
thereby leading to the set-up of a weak democracy in the nation. Pakistan
has been witnessed an unstable democracy since its inception, with
governments being thrown over and institutions over-riding each other’s
jurisdictions. Our study revealed that the Constitution of Pakistan does
not explicitly entail the separation of powers, as is mentioned in the
Constitutions of the U.S.A. or the U.K. As a result, the institutions of
government exceed their boundaries and start meddling in each other’s
domains, leading to bad governance, power imbalance and a feeble
democracy. If each of the three organs of government stayed dedicated
to their own jurisdictions, with time, practice and hard work, a strong
democratic setup would be established, with appropriate checks and
balances in place. Documentary analysis was employed in order to
review prior literature and then an elite interviewing approach was
adopted so that the findings from experts of relevant institutions could
also be established, thereby incorporating both first- and second-hand
data into the research.

Keywords: Separation of Powers, Democracy, Judicial Activism, Supremacy of

Law, Balance of Power

I. Introduction
Separation of powers is an idea that was given by Montesquieu in the 18th century
(Online Library of Liberty, 2016). After analyzing the constitutions of Britain, he came to
a conclusion that there must be separation of power between the main political departments
of any state. According to this idea, a state has three organs which include the executive,
judiciary and legislature. Taking into account the idea, different nations worked on their
constitutions. Montesquieu’ idea was to give strength to democracy but unfortunately not
a single state is a true democratic one as the institutions keep on overlapping each other’s
powers every now and then.

Date of Acceptance and Available Online: 20 December , 2021

876 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 41, No. 4

The theory of separation of powers presented by Montesquieu had a great impact

on Western political and constitutional development. Montesquieu plunged into the study
of institutions, and appreciated the powers of the British Parliament and freedom of the
Judiciary (Montesquieu, 2002). He further explained the theory that if the powers of
Legislation and the Executive are incorporated into one institution of government, then the
liberties of the people will be at stake. If judicial powers are granted to the same
organization which has powers to legislate the law, then laws become meaningless.
Ultimately, if any one of the organs of government retains all the powers, or concentration
of powers exists, it is a big threat to the rights and liberties of the people. So, the powers
of government must be divided among the three organs. Another prominent English jurist,
William Black Stone, strengthened the ideology of separation of powers by asserting that
whenever an institution has the power of making, as well as implementing laws, then the
people’s liberty cannot be guaranteed (Blackstone, 2016). John Lock, a renowned English
philosopher, also claims that a lawful government always adopts the principle of separation
of powers. He described that the Legislature should be the supreme law-making authority
in the system. While maintaining that the executive has the power to implement these laws,
interestingly he did not mention anything significant about the Judiciary (Lock, 2017).

The very first instance of this clash of institutions was seen in the United States
of America in the case of Marbury vs. Madison and McCullough vs. Maryland when Mr.
William Marbury who was appointed at the post of Peace by President Adams filed a case
against President Jefferson to find justice related to his commission. This case was of great
significance on the legal as well as the political grounds as it set an example of judicial
review (Case Text, 1803). This clash of institutions is more common in the developing
countries like Pakistan than the developed ones and it becomes the reason of political
instability in such countries. Separation of power is an important aspect in maintaining
balance of power between the three pillars of government but there has always been a clash
between these superior institutions of Pakistan and is considered a reason for a weak
democracy of the country. Judiciary is the guardian of fundamental human rights of
Pakistani citizens according to the constitution but this is a bliss for some and hurdle of
other. The reason is that though it provides and ensures the fundamental rights but it also
identifies the failure of government in providing those rights. Secondly, this step of
judiciary ensures that it is intervening in the powers of legislature which is considered as
clash of institutions resulting into failure of democracy.

The debate then revolves around the question of how to avoid the concentration
of power? The answer is by separating the functions of the three pillars of government:
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, so that all the institutions maintain a certain balance
of power against one another whilst simultaneously avoiding concentration of power. “Le
Pouvior Arrete Le Pouvidir” is a French term which means power stops power.

The story of Pakistani democracy is also not a fascinating one; it is full of

institutional instabilities. The loopholes created by the elected politicians provided the
opportunity to other institutions to intervene in the political system and thereby dismantle
the democracy (Khalid, 2012). Prominent Pakistani scholars have argued that the 1973
Constitution of Pakistan clearly set the boundaries for the three main branches of
government, defining the powers of the Executive, the Judiciary and Legislature. The aim
is to avoid any confrontation in the system (Qumber, 2016). Sultana states that the smooth
and uninterrupted working of the state machinery depends on the three main institutions of
 877
the Executive, the Judiciary and Legislature where each institution works responsibly in its
respective area, along with maintaining a system of checks and balances. However,
unfortunately the Pakistani Judiciary and Executive are empowered institutions, which end
up compromising the very essence of democracy itself (Sultana, 2012). As a result, there
has always been a clash between these superior institutions, which is a pivotal reason for
derailing democracy in the country. This study intends to explore how far the institutions
of government are following the spiit of separation of power as envisioned in the 1973
Constitution of Pakistan, and how has it impacted the relationship between different organs
of the state and democratic transition. Does the principle of the separation of power as
envisioned in the constitution guarantees the protection to democracy? While talking of
separation of power among institutions why judiciary put at superior place in Pakistan?

II. Separation of Powers: An Overview

“That Basic Feature of Doctrine may not be the part of the constitution of
Pakistan. Ultimate power should be in the hands of elected members of parliament but not
flow from the pens of judges. A powerful judiciary is not necessarily an independent
judiciary. And conversely, an independent judiciary is not necessarily a powerful
judiciary.” (Justice Saqib Nisar)

The separation of powers is a method to keep the three main departments of state
separate in a way that these cannot overlap each other’s powers. The crux of the theory of
separation of powers, as given by Montesquieu, restricts every organ of the government
such that each organ or pillar shall act according to the law and the constitution, and not
beyond it (the theory of separation of powers). Hence, the separation of powers is a method
to keep the three main departments of state separate from infringing on the powers of
another. These three departments are the Judiciary, the Executive and Legislature (Cornel
Law School, n.d.). A useful phrase of the pure doctrine of separation of power as
described by Murice Vile’s, is that pure separation means that the duties to run the system
of government is completely divided between legislature, judiciary and executive. Each
branch is restricted to exercise its powers in its own domain and not allowed to interfere in
the affairs of other branches. In this way powers are divided and each branch will be a
check to others. (M.J.C.Vile, 2009) . He further described that the theory in its pure form
has been rarely implemented. This is because the three branches are interrelated in their
functions and cannot adapt the strict separation along with practical lines of the classical
doctrine of separation of power. (Hamlin, 1994) . Manning argued that even the
constitution of USA has not adapted the idea of separation of power completely
(F.Manning, 2011).

The key to the success of democracy, however, requires the balance of power
among the institutions. If one institution dominates the others, it will probably not be able
to maintain democratic values (Rizvi, 2012). Mohaar has also explained this a clash of
institutions can damage the democratic process. The democracy in the country has been
challenged by the judicial activism, the interference of judiciary in the affairs of other
institutions of government. Intervention of one institution into the other not only
destabilizes the democracy but also affects the prestige of the judiciary. The root cause of
wobbly politics in Pakistan is the clash of institutions. (Mohaar, 2018). Rahman states that
the judicial system of Pakistan has never remained independent in its decision making. It
has always been pressurized by other institutions of country either military or religious
878 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 41, No. 4

groups. Verdict of Supreme Court regarding non-Muslims is a prominent example external

pressure on judiciary (Rehman, 2016).

III. Research Methodology

This research employed the qualitative methodology to explore the behavior of
different institutions and their effect on democracy. The aim of this research is to
investigate the reasons as to why the democracy in Pakistan could not establish even after
the passage of 74 years of country‘s independence. The data is collected through
documentary analysis and 15 elite interviews with experts in politics, bureaucracy, armed
forces and judiciary. The documentary analysis helped in reviewing the legal and
constitutional documents (Mangal, 2013) and court verdicts. The interviews with the
people on the subject helped in having a deeper understanding of the subject under
research. The Purposive sampling technique was used to contact the interviewees.
Interviews were structured and the number of questions as well as the expression of
questions were kept similar for all the interviewees and a tight control over the question
answer format was ensured by the researchers (Nachmias, 2008) to produce a reliable and
verifiable data. The interview data was later transcribed and interpreted using thematic
analysis technique of data analysis. Through this method, a researcher gets familiar with
the data by reading and decoding the text to find themes to find answer to the research
questions posed (Gomm, 2008)

A. Separation of Powers: Analysis of the Constitution of Pakistan

Democracy is defined as a form of government where supreme power is vested in
the people and exercised directly by their elected representatives under a free electoral
system. Since independence, three constitutions have been promulgated in Pakistan: the
Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973. Pakistan was a parliamentary democratic system
under both the 1956 and 1973 constitutions, but public dissatisfaction with this system, due
to poor governance of the institutions, has been quite evident (Islam, 2001). Democracy
has failed to flourish in Pakistan due to undemocratic norms and behaviors.

According to the constitution of Pakistan, the Judiciary and the Administration

should be separated from each other. No authority should encroach on the jurisdiction of
others, except where allowed by the law. The powers of legislature and executive are
enshrined in article 7 of the 1973 constitution. Whereas the power of judiciary are
explained in part VII “The Judicature” of the 1973 constitution. The Executive cannot use
judicial powers, just as the Judiciary is not able to use administrative powers (Bellamy,
2005). Dr. Hassnain Javed, a well-read individual, indicated that although the constitution
of Pakistan has a different ‘amalgamation’, there still prevails the separation of powers. He
elaborated that there are diverse factors that affect the separation of powers, which is why
we do not get the desired results:

“We, as a nation, follow in the footsteps of the Western democracy where majority
is authority and under this system the constitution has been amalgamated and fused
differently; at times the majority influences the separation of powers, at others the Judiciary
employs excessive powers and sometimes it is the Parliament that goes the extra mile.
There are also instances when the people use their freedom of expression aggressively and
agitatedly to get favorable decisions” (Dr. H. Javed, personal interview, December 3,
2020). Mr. Tariq Mahmood, an adept bureaucrat, is of the view that the idea of separation
 879
of powers exists, but is not ‘explicitly spelled out’ in Pakistan’s constitution, as it is in the
constitutions of the U.S.A. and Great Britain from where this idea originally emerged:

“We do have three distinct, yet contentiously spelled out, branches in our system; the
Legislative, which is supposed to formulate laws or rules; an Administration which
implements these laws; and the Judiciary which ensures that the laws are framed in
accordance with the constitution. The interpretation of these laws is also a power vested in
the Judiciary. In this way, the principle of separation of powers exists in both our
constitution as well as in the political practices” (T. Mahmood, personal interview, October
26, 2020).

Aitzaz Ahsan, who is a renowned politician and a well reputed barrister, however,
argues that our constitution is a “hybrid” and there exists a stark difference between theory
and practice. In Pakistan, the Judiciary acts beyond their territorial jurisdiction and enjoys
a far superior status. They have such an enormous equity of tenure that the judges can only
be removed after a decision by their peers, or by the Supreme Judicial Council made up of
other judges, and to date no judge has actually been removed, although one or two have
been forced to resign. Hence, judges remain an island unto themselves; they have stretched
the concept of ‘independence of Judiciary’ to such an extent that they have become
independent, not under the constitution but of the constitution (Farooq, 2016). This is
especially true when the Judiciary exercises discretionary authority under the notion of the
suo motto action that the Supreme Court takes.

However, Justice Nasira Javed, an honorable retired judge, illuminated the

positive role of the Judiciary as the guardian of fundamental rights. She called the Judiciary
the “least dangerous” branch of government. She also admitted, like Mr. Tariq Mahmood,
that the constitution of Pakistan does present the idea of separation of powers, as every
institution is performing its allocated duties. The duty of the Judiciary is to redress the
grievances of the public; if the Legislature promulgates any law that is against the interest
of the public, they can always go to the Judiciary (since the constitution comes under their
jurisdiction) regarding it, along with issues of mutual disputes. The Judiciary is seen as the
least dangerous branch of the government because it does not impose any liabilities on the
Executive branch, on the people or on the Legislative; it only tries to settle disputes and
redress the grievances of the parties. This means that the person who approaches the court
should either have a grievance, or be an aggrieved party.

Mr. Manzer Hayat, a proficient bureaucrat and a famous columnist, criticized the
democracy of Pakistan by calling it “transitional” and denies the fact that the constitution
of Pakistan presents the idea of separation of powers at all. He argued that Pakistan does
not have democracy in its original form, as is present in the West or in India. Rather, we
have a transitional democracy; there is also a strong military presence in decision making.
Thus, in its present form, it is also widely accepted that Pakistani democracy is neither
Western oriented nor Western defined. He further pondered that though we have
institutions in our country, including the Judiciary and the Executive, we do not have
powerful and service-delivering institutions. Thus, due to nonfunctional institutions and
the presence of a transitional democracy, even though our constitution provides for it, we
do not see the practical implementation of the idea.
880 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 41, No. 4

Prof. Hassan Askari, a leading professor of political science and political analyst,
argues that the powers of institutions in Pakistan overlap, which is affecting the democratic
procedure. A major threat to democracy in Pakistan emanates from the non-elected
institutions of bureaucracy and the Judiciary. Over the years, the bureaucracy of Pakistan
has supported other elements so as to expand its authority over parliament. Whenever the
military took over the democratic government, the Judiciary was the former’s main
supporter. During all such military takeovers or crises against an elected parliament, the
apex courts have been consistently engaged in Judicial Activism. The clash of powers
between the Executive and the Judiciary is not a good omen for Pakistani democracy
(Rizvi, 2012). Consequently, as Mohaar (2018) also highlights, this clash of institutions
can damage the democratic process, particularly by Judicial Activism and by the
interference of the Judiciary in the affairs of other institutions of the government. Such
intervention of one institution into the other not only destabilizes democracy, but also
affects the prestige of the Judiciary. Speaking in the same vein, Rahman (2016) further
states that the root cause of unsteady politics in Pakistan is the clash of institutions. The
judicial system of Pakistan has never remained independent in its decision-making; it has
always been pressurized by other institutions of the country, whether military or religious
groups. The verdict of the Supreme Court regarding non-Muslims is a prominent example
of religious pressure on the Judiciary. Thus, he argues that the Judiciary should remain
independent in order to make its decisions without any external influences.

B. Separation of Power Guarantees Protection to Democracy

Separation of powers is a key requirement of democracy but it is not the only
factor that influences the nature or direction of politics and the future of democracy in a
country. According to Dr. Hassan Askari, this notion of separation of powers is basically
designed to avoid the concentration of all powers in one institution. Each institution has its
own role in the system. Thus, the idea is that, in a democratic setup, no single entity should
dominate. No branch of the government should surpass the powers given to it by virtue of
the constitution. Additionally, even though there is much talk about sovereignty, no pillar
of government has sovereign powers; it is the constitution which is sovereign, and our
constitution upholds the declaration that sovereignty rests solely with God and he has
delegated His powers to the citizens. Honorable Justice Nasira Javed also added that a
“sovereign constitution” must be rigid and written, needing exceptional circumstances for
amendment. The benefit of a rigid constitution is that it not only protects democracy, but
also nurtures the practice of the separation of powers.

Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan discussed at length the role of the military and the suspension
of the constitution. He argues that Pakistan’s army is impervious to any of these concepts;
it has disregarded the sanctity of the constitution and its realization by imposing martial
laws not once, not twice, but a whopping total of four times in the country’s history. This
is a complete violation of the oath taken by the officers of the Pakistan Army to protect,
defend and uphold the constitution of Pakistan. Likewise, he further argues that the
Judiciary is enjoying both its “immunity and impunity,” since the separation of powers
manuscript is stripped by the judiciary.

“In cases like that of Begum Nusrat Bhutt’s judgement, Zafar Ali Shah’s
judgement, Mahmood Khan Achakzai’s judgement, Asima Jillani’s judgement and
innumerable others, the Judiciary has tried to, and been successful in, expanding their own
independence. It is the Judiciary that has always expounded the concept of trichotomy of
 881
power. I personally don’t really know of even one significant case or judgement where the
concept of trichotomy of power has been used to restrain the judges from encroaching and
interfering in the jurisdiction of the Executive or the Parliament. Rather, it has only been
used to protect the authority of the concerned judges” (A. Ahsan, personal interview,
November 3, 2020).

Mr. Tariq Mahmood illustrated his views that the basic aim of the separation of
powers is to ensure that everybody stays within their domain; it is not a majority rule
wherein the bulkiest should bulldoze everyone else. The design of separation of powers
facilitates the system in many ways, one of which being that it protects and assists
democracy. However, without practical adoption of the theory, this is impossible. Among
the respondents, Dr. Hassnain Javed explicitly raised questions on democracy, blaming it
for the imbalance of power; he maintained that the democratic structure of Pakistan has
completely disturbed the three pillars of government, namely the Parliament, the Executive
and the Judiciary. As Plato said, “democracy is the perverted form of polity” (Lange, 1939).
He said that democracy is not recommended for third world countries where the literacy
rate is low and people are unaware of their rights. Thus, the real essence of democracy is
still debatable. Furthermore, he questioned the role of the constitution in preventing martial
law in Pakistan, i.e. all martial law administrators including Ayyub Khan, Zia Ul Haq and
Pervez Musharraf, who suspended the constitution.

C. Superiority of the Judiciary and Power Imbalances among Institutions

There are three core organs of the state: Legislature, the Executive and the
Judiciary. Among these three, the Judiciary is the only non-political organ and it commands
a reverential place in society. The Judiciary in Pakistan is more autonomous
constitutionally and its key role is adjudication. Independence and autonomy of the
Judiciary is a prerequisite in a democratic system. It has to be independent because now
and again it has to deal with problems and disputes between different state institutions,
hence it becomes pertinent that no subjective biases arise, nor has any sort of influences
imposed on it. It can also deal with the issues and problems between provinces and the
federation, and between government and individual citizens. The idea, basically, is to keep
the Judiciary at a distance and grant them job security so that they can implement the
constitution efficiently.

An eminent politician and former Minister for Education, Mian Imran Masood,
discussing the superior role of Judiciary among institutions, said that the members of
Parliament cannot discuss judicial matters on the floor of the House since rules and
regulations do not allow parliamentarians to discuss the conduct of a judge. The philosophy
behind this limitation is that the Judiciary is a sacrosanct body. If a layman starts to criticize
the Judiciary then the institution loses its prestige, and thus the Judiciary is always superior.
The Judiciary enjoys its protocols and its powers; every citizen has to follow the decorum
of appearing in court. That being said, members of Parliament also enjoy their privileges
since the constitution gives them full protection of their rights. Members of Parliament are
important because they represent the public, and the Judiciary is prestigious because it is
the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people; it provides justice to the public.
Hence, both the institutions, as well as the constitution, protect the rights of the public.
882 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 41, No. 4

Dr. Hassan Askari gave his erudite opinion that the superiority of the Judiciary is
the result of “polarization” of political parties. The greater role of the Judiciary in political
affairs is due to the fact that political leaders and political parties are so polarized that they
cannot settle their disputes and problems themselves. Parliament is not an effective forum
for political conflict management and conflict resolution. Politicians have a tendency to go
to the Judiciary even for minor political issues that could easily be settled either inside
Parliament or by political parties outside Parliament. He elaborated that such issues can be
resolved in Parliament by mutual adjustment. Democracy means accommodation and
sharing, but unfortunately these characteristics are missing in Pakistan; the evident result
of this is power imbalance among the institutions of government. Tariq Mahmood has
presented a positive picture of Judiciary and argues that:

“Constitutionally speaking, the Judiciary has the power to oversee. If there exist
any administrative issues even then they falls under the domain of the Judiciary to oversee
it i.e. to look into it and correct or rectify it. For example, the tribunals that take place, they
are basically a corrective mechanism. Thus, this particular role of oversight belongs to
Judiciary and, hence, it keeps in check how the other two organs of the government are
performing.” (T. Mahmood, personal interview, October 26, 2020)

The duty of the Judiciary is, thus, to ensure that the laws protect the fundamental
rights of the people. Even the power of Judicial Review is related to fundamental rights,
since the constitution gives the utmost importance to fundamental rights (Haider, 2018).
Honorable Justice Nasira Javed perceives the Judiciary as the guardian of the rights of the
people; she maintains that the Judiciary is not a superior place. It is also a fact that, although
parliament and the executive both assume that they are sovereign bodies, it is actually the
Judiciary that is sovereign in practice, i.e. they might not be above the others, but at least
they are independent. This institution is deemed to be independent because a judge cannot
be removed from service before the completion of his/her tenure. Mr. Rao Manzer Hayat
flatly refused to even accept the idea of the Judiciary’s superiority, saying that the Judiciary
is not a superior institution in our country since it does not interfere in affairs of state.
Nowhere in the constitution is it mentioned that the Judiciary is superior. Aitzaz Ahsan
argued that:

“The canon of separation of powers has always been spelt out by the Judiciary.
The Judiciary uses this notion as a sword, not a shield, and it allows no other institution
except the army to use this shield. When the Judiciary exercises its legal jurisdiction
abusively, it spoils the system.” (A. Ahsan, personal interview, November 3, 2020)

Hassnain Javed admitted that the Judiciary commands a higher position amongst
the institutions; he also pointed out that it is actually a weak democracy that exists in
Pakistan and that is the actual reason of the Judiciary’s supremacy. The causes of this
judicial supremacy entail a weak democracy, irregularity of civil behavior, and the
parliamentary system as is also highlighted by Tripathi (P.K.Tripathi, 1975). The
Parliamentary system is rife with a plethora of flaws that have provided space for the
Judiciary to play a leading role in bringing to term the disparities between federal and
provincial laws. There also exist considerable flaws between procedural and substantial
laws. At times, the Judiciary is compelled to take action, especially if being pressurized by
the majority. Sometimes they make the right decisions; at others, they make the wrong
decisions.
 883
IV. Analysis
The research brings to a close the deduction that separation of powers as well as
balance of powers amidst the various organs of the government is essential to run a
successful democratic system. In Pakistan, the conception of separation of powers does not
exist that apparently because the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary do not perform their
defined functions. Though the 1973 constitution of Pakistan provides the opportunity to
implement the doctrine of separation of power but the dogma has never been implemented
according to its true spirit or the system of check and balances prevailed in the country.
The key success of democracy requires the balance of power among the institutions of
Pakistan. If one institution dominates the other it will not be probable to maintain
democratic values. We in Pakistan have a transitional democracy; there is a strong military
presence in the nation that had derailed its democratic process time and again. The result
is that from time to time the institutions of government exceed their boundaries and start
meddling in each other’s’ domains. This has become the root cause of bad governance and
feeble democracy in Pakistan. For a successful and thriving democratic system, separation
of powers as among the institutions of government is a requisite. If the Parliament legislates
laws, the Administration implements them and the Judiciary provides complete protection
to the rights of citizens then neither any individual nor the institutions can impediment the
smooth flow of a prosperous democracy.

Thus, after 74 years of manipulation and exploitation, we stand at cross roads.

Pakistan’s political institutions like the Legislature remained under strain due to the
influential and effectual positions of the military, Judiciary and the bureaucracy (Ahmad,
2018) The most important function of the Judiciary in a constitutional democracy is that
it is the custodian of the constitution as well as the rights of citizens. An impartial and
independent Judiciary can provide fair dispensation of justice and solvency of democratic
institutions. A proper recruitment process of Apex court judges can ensure the impartiality
and independence of Judiciary.

Although judicial activism has affected democracy, others factors have

contributed to the weakening of democracy too especially when political leaders frequently
approach the Judiciary for settling matters that are essentially political in nature. It plainly
showcases that political institutions are not disposing of their responsibilities suitably and,
therefore, looking to the state institutions like the Judiciary and military to come and rescue
them. Such situations had created an imbalance in state institutions. It has been evident that
whenever any institution of government has exceeded their boundaries and started
interfering in the domains of others, democracy has been at stake. A historical overview of
the democratic process of Pakistan has revealed that the Judiciary always justified the
unconstitutional acts of the military and bureaucracy under the ruse of doctrine of
necessity. However, for a promising democracy to flourish in the country, it is essential
that all institutions of government fulfill their duties while residing within the limits of their
domains. Thus, in order for us to move forward as a civilized nation, we must define the
purpose of the Republic of Pakistan as well as adopt democracy as its truest essence i.e.
one which guarantees and safeguard of fundamental human rights by defining the powers
and relations of institutions of government explicitly under the constitution.
884 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 41, No. 4

V. Conclusion
The conclusion after the entire debate is that although the constitution of Pakistan
presents the idea of separation of powers, it is not laid out as clearly as the way it is
presented in the constitution of the United States. The result is that from time to time the
institutions of government exceed their boundaries and start meddling in each other’s
domains. This has become the root cause of bad governance and feeble democracy in
Pakistan. For a successful and thriving democratic system, the separation of powers among
the institutions of government is a requisite. If Parliament legislates laws, the
administration implements them and the Judiciary provides complete protection to the
rights of citizens, then neither any individual nor the institutions can impede the smooth
flow of a prosperous democracy. It is not just the institutional instability or the negligent
behavior of the politicians; time, practice and hard work will strengthen the democratic
setup of the nation. The democratic system of Pakistan is not weak by default; rather it is
weak by reason. It has been deliberately kept fragile to serve the vested interests of a few
and the evident result of this is power imbalance among the institutions of government.

References
Ahmed, I. ( 2020). The 18th Amendment: Historical Developments and Debates in
Pakistan. ISAS Insights.
Ahmad, R. E. (2018). politics of persuation and power in the political and apolitical
institutions of Pakistan 2008-2018. Research Journal of South Asian studies, 621-
628.
Bellamy, R. P. (2005). The Rule of Law and Separation of Powers. Ashgate/Dartmouth.
Blackstone, W. (2016). Commentaries on the Laws of England. OUP Oxford publishers.
Case Text. (1803, January 1). Marbury v. Madison. Retrieved from casetext:
https://casetext.com/case/marbury-v-madison
Farooq, S. (2016). Independent Judiciary and its Role in Nation-Building: Case study of
Pakistan. Global Regional Review.
Gomm, R. (2008). Social Research Methodology: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Haider, M. (2018). The Role of Judiciary in Good Governance: A Case Study of Pakistan.
. Seventh International Conference on Advances in Social Sciences.
Islam, N. (2001). Democracy and Governance in Pakistan's Fragmented Society.
International Journal of Public Administration .
Javaid, A. (2020). The Hypothetical Separation of Power in Pakistan. Courting the Law.
Khalid, D. (2012). Role of Judiciary in the Evolvement of Democracy in Pakistan. Journal
of Political Studies, Vol 19.
Lange, S. (1939). Plato and Democracy. The Classical Journal, Vol. 34.
Lock, J. (2017). The Treaties on Civil Government. Peacock Publishers.
Mangal, S. K. (2013). Research Methodology in Behavioural Sciences. New Delhi: PHI
Learning Pvt Limited.
Mohaar, K. (2018, March 14). Separation of Power and Pakistan. The Nation.
Montesquieu, C. (2002). The Spirit of the Laws. Prometheus Books.
Nachmias, C. F. (2008). Research Methods in Social sciences 7th edition. Worth publishers
Inc.
Newberg, P. (1996). Judging the State: Courts and Constitutional Politics in Pakistan. J
ASIAN STUD/August 1996.
 885
Online Library of Liberty. (2016, April 13). Montesquieu and the Separation of Powers.
Retrieved from Online Library of Liberty:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/montesquieu-and-the-separation-of-powers
Tripathi, P. K. (1975). Rule of Law, Democracy, and the Frontiers of Judicial Activism.
Journal of the Indian Law Institute.
Qumber, G. (2016). Independent Judiciary and its Role in Nation Building: Case study of
Pakistan. www.grrjournal.com.
Rapley, T. (2007). Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis. SAGE
publication Ltd.
Rehman, A. (2016). Pakistan too needs a debate on how to keep its judiciary independent.
Cambridge ,org.
Rehman, I. (2016). Pakistan too needs a debate on how to keep its judiciary independent.
Cambridge, org.
Rizvi, D. (2012, july 25th). Democracy's uncertain future. Pakistan Today.
Strauss, J. C. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Sultana, T. (2012). Montesquieu’s Doctrine of Separation of Power: A Cse Study of
Pakistan. Journal of European Studies, 60-67.
The Theory of Separation of Powers. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http//www.politicalscienceview.com

Appendix 1: List of Interviewees

Name Date Background
Mr. Chaudhry 3rd November Pakistani politician and lawyer who served two times as the
Aitzaz Ahsan 2020 Leader of the House in the Senate of Pakistan
Hasan Askari 27 Pakistani political scientist and military analyst who served
Rizvi September2020 as caretaker Chief Minister of Punjab, Pakistan in 2018.
Dr Hassnain 3rd December An adviser and an internationally acclaimed sinologist and
Javaid 2020 master trainer Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance
Center.
Lieutenant General Javed Hassan (Retd.), Hilal-e-Imtiaz
Lieutenant
(HI Military) and Sitara-e-Imtiaz (SI) is serving as Chief
General Javed
Adviser to the President, UMT on Institutionalization and
Hassan
Governance and positioned as the Professor of Practice.
Dr Khawaja 7th September Ex Vice Chancellor BZU Multan. Professor of IR.
Alqama 2020 Ambassador of Pakistan to Yemen.
Mian Imran Senior Parliamentarian and former education minister in
26 October 2020
Masood Punjab Government.
Mujeeb ur 27 December Pakistani journalist and columnist and chief editor of Daily
Rehman Shami 2020 Pakistan newspaper.
Nasira Javaid 11 November Served as a justice of the Lahore High Court from 1994 to
Iqbal 2020 2002
Joined DMG in 1984. Remained posted as Assistant
Rao Manzer
4 December 2020 commissioner, Deputy commissioner, DCO, Secretary in
Hayat
various government departments.
Tariq Mehmood 26 October 2020 Remained posted as Sectary in various departments.