It is 1973 constitution overall which is defaced. 18th amendment is the lethal attack and base for ripping Pakistan apart.
I'm still confused. What exactly did you mean by "defaced the 1973 constitution".
That'd be entirely separate discussion if you wish to propose some amendment, especially if those involve fundamental. Apparently you sound totally dissatisfied and wish to 'rewrite' the new constitution!! That's fine but please if you may inform what kind of new Constitution you wish to 'rewrite"; that'd be just for the information.
Coming back to the question of 'defacing' I'd help myself to recall the basic amendments to the original(while ignoring the procedural amendments)
Electoral system:
1. The number of seats were increased from some around 200 to the current ones (i may say that had to happen with the increase in population)
2. The Number of un-elected (or special seat were increased from some 10% to the current about 33%. This drastically increased the powers of the political party leadership. With un-elected upper house (in the original ), about half of the whole parliament is currently appointed by the leaders. Do you wish to revert back or wish to have an elected senate --- or if I'm not mistaken about the gist of your point, you rather wish to further curtail the choice of the people.
3. There were some procedural charities and chain of events about the selection of the leaders of the house giving poqwera to the president.
4. 18th amendment added several provision that rather gave dictatorial powers to the party leaders (taking from the elected leaders of house), and curtailed the voting options for its member (i.e. limited the powers of the voters from the constituency.) (This IMO was rather a criminal act on the part of Raza Rabbani led team that was more interested to strengthen the personality of Zardari and Bhuttoes than the voters). However, as expected from the beginning, the amendments were unnatural and undemocratic. and whenever the case reached in the courts or EC, the amendment was stuck down. And now the recent development in the Baluchistan assembly, where the party leaders were left cut and dried, this certain part of 18th amendment is (rightly) dead and buried. I don't see much to worry because the courts will restore the powers of the parliament and its members as more cases would arise in the coming years.
5. Another point is the issue of presidential ordinance (present in the original in the exact terms, if I'm not wrong) by the executive to usurps the rights of the lawmakers. In practice, using ordinance, the administration has an upper hand over the parliament (hence the voter). The courts have at several occasions discouraged this practice and have advised the parliament to struck down this provision. One had expected that the (fake) champion of the Parliament Rabbani would have restored the powers of the parliament but strictly banning the powers of ordinance as in other democratic countries.
Please help me what exactly do see as DEFACING the 1973 constitution on the electoral side. If I'm not mistaken you rather wish to further curtail the democratic rights of the people than to enhance them: Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Now to the legal side:
1. 5th and 6th amendments in 1975/76 drastically curtailed the powers of high courts and put limits on the basic rights of the citizens. The Court reacted and in its ver first judgments, partially restored its jurisdiction though still the administration can put the citizen behind bar for a certain number of days.
2. The Shariat Courts were inducted into the constitution, however the Supreme Court assumed its jurisdiction for review and appointments. As the history shows these courts are practically non existent since from the day one , Supreme court was never inclined to relinquish its powers. The parallel legal system of Shariat Courts is a dead horse and rightly so.
3. Then there has been an issue of magisterial powers. The original document had guaranteed the independence of judiciary, however the administration tried its best to keep the judicial powers in their hands through the offices of of magistrates and tehsildars, DC etc. At last, administration had to give up after several court decisions. However, after once giving up these powers, the administration has constantly tried to usurps the judicial powers in guise of local bodies reforms and police reforms etc. This issue is not simple because some powers have to vested with the administration, the courts wishes or not.
4. Office of the Muhtasib was created as an independent body with powers into the working of government officials and its services. Today, this office is practically dead.
5. The nap ordinance for independent inquiry and legal settlement was added to the original document. This constitutional amendment seemed well needed,
6. Then their are some amendments for anti-terrorism courts. Theses courts are the most drastic measure that have usurped the legal and political rights of the people and given a sword in the hand of administration to over reach all legal and basic rights norms of the people. These courts are rather a product of the current history and Supreme/high courts have been quite retained while judging about the terrorism cases because of the politics. As the situation in the country would stabilize, one hopes, the courts woulds strike down anti-terrorism laws. In the long run, these anti-terrorism laws and courts have go away to restore the basic rights of the citizens. The current, situational and time-bound military courts are in the same league. One hopes, when the relatively peaceful times would come, the basic rights of the people would be restored.
Third significant section of the constitution involve the division of powers among the different units of the federation.
I don't wish to go through these changes since, in the end, these are of the administrative nature and quite fluid. In a tug of war between the units and the center, each election and parliament create new provisions and new departments to satisfy the electorate nd to create an environment for the smooth functional administration as well. One may keep in mind that in the modern administrative and treasury system, it is always the center which dictates the terms regardless how the division of powers are described on the paper. Strong/autonomous units is a politically 'rightist's position as they see that more political air may be generated through dividing the electorate. In the coming years, in view of integrated commerce, communication and technology, the units are on the losing side and in the meanwhile this political wars of rights would go on. Our current problems are rather a reflection of a lack of national political party and this is a political failure.
However, if you find certain provision which is so objectionable that the current Constitution must be scrapped, please inform about it.
I made this overview of the changes in the original documents to help myself to understand your point (and I might have have missed some basic amendment and please add them to the list ). NOW, please let me know: What is your exact point; Which amendment you wish to restore: For what specific objective and for what set of political/legal rights of the people you aim o REWRITE ' the Constitution. Thanks.
