EVALUATING THE PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT OF THE 26TH AMENDMENT IN PAKISTAN AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

Abstract

The study critically examines the impact of the 26th Constitutional Amendment in Pakistan. Despite a divide between supporters and detractors of the amendment on the country’s political and organizational structure, supporters tend to defend the amendment as necessary to resolve legal and governance issues, while its implementation has raised significant concerns regarding the separation of powers. The research highlights the critical aspects of institutionalizing such an amendment, which, despite its observed questionable implementation, demonstrates innovative potential with respect to specific sustainability issues. The selection of this case is representative not only for the geographical area under analysis, but for countries whose socio-political history has been unstable and not always hinged on a solid democratic perspective. The authors used an exploratory qualitative approach with purposive sampling of the population involved. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with a specially selected group of individuals. To analyze perceptions of the constitutional amendment, 225 respondents, including academics, legal professionals, journalists, politicians and members of the civil society, were involved providing responses and perceptive data. Two main themes have been identified: the perceived loss of judicial independence and perceived constitutional uncertainty, despite potential benefits. The widespread perception is that the amendment increases government control over court activities and the selection of judges, compromising their impartiality. Free from any bias, the authors objectively provide a representative scenario based on phenomenological observation, both using an interpretative framework based on the separation of powers, legal realism and approaching the theoretical framework through a lens focused on institutionalism and organizational change.