Reasons for the Failure of the Constitutions of 1956 and 1962

1. Political instability

Between 1947 and 1958 there were frequent changes of prime ministers and cabinets. This weakened the continuity of government and the working of democratic institutions, prevented a stable parliamentary system and left the constitution without a firm foundation.

2. Lack of effective political leadership

After the deaths of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1948) and Liaquat Ali Khan (1951), Pakistan lacked experienced leaders able to maintain national unity and strengthen democratic institutions. Leaders were often caught up in personal rivalries and struggles for power rather than constitutional government and national problems.

3. Weakness of political parties

Parties failed to develop strong democratic traditions and organisation. Factionalism, personal rivalries and lack of discipline weakened their role in parliamentary government, and they often became involved in disputes over authority instead of providing stable governments and representing public opinion. This weakened public confidence in the system.

4. Conflict between the President and the Prime Minister

The struggle for power between the President and the elected government was an important cause of instability. President Iskander Mirza frequently interfered in politics and used his influence to try to control the government. Changes in the premiership and conflicts between the executive and the legislature undermined parliamentary authority, as leaders relied on personal influence and administrative authority instead of letting institutions work independently.

5. Regional disparities between East and West Pakistan

East Pakistan had the larger population but its people felt they did not receive adequate representation in the central administration, the armed forces and economic development, and considered the distribution of power and resources unfair. Parity (equal representation of the two wings despite different populations) was meant to balance their interests but caused dissatisfaction in East Pakistan because it did not reflect its population majority.

These grievances weakened national unity. Although the 1956 Constitution failed in 1958, regional tensions continued and contributed to the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, a later development that should not be confused with the immediate cause of the abrogation.

6. The language controversy

Many in East Pakistan demanded recognition of Bengali alongside Urdu. The Language Movement gained strength after 1952, when protests led to police firing in Dhaka. The 1956 Constitution recognised both Urdu and Bengali as state languages, but the earlier controversy had already damaged relations and increased the feeling among many Bengalis that their identity was not respected, contributing to alienation and weakening national integration.

7. Increasing military and bureaucratic influence

During the 1950s senior civil servants and military officials gained influence over politics, as weak civilian governments and frequent changes let unelected institutions play a greater role in decisions. This weakened parliamentary democracy and the authority of elected representatives, and the martial law of 7 October 1958 ended the constitutional system.

8. Opposition to the One Unit Scheme

The One Unit Scheme (1955), before the 1956 Constitution came into force, merged the provinces and other administrative areas of West Pakistan into a single province, mainly to establish parity with East Pakistan in the central legislature. Political groups and regional leaders in West Pakistan opposed it, fearing it would weaken provincial autonomy and the identities of the smaller provinces. This increased regional dissatisfaction.

9. Economic inequality and socio-economic problems

Many believed that economic opportunities, public investment and development resources were not fairly distributed between the wings and among social groups. Inflation, poverty, unemployment and unequal access to opportunity increased discontent and pressure on an unstable system, and the government could not resolve the major economic and regional grievances enough to strengthen confidence in constitutional government.

10. Limitations of the unicameral legislature

The 1956 Constitution had a single central chamber, with representation based on parity rather than population alone. A single chamber was not by itself the cause of failure, but it did not settle the basic disagreement over representation, and the smaller provinces lacked a separate federal forum comparable to a Senate. The arrangement failed to satisfy the competing demands for population-based representation, regional equality and provincial autonomy.

11. Weak constitutional traditions and disregard for the rule of law

Early political history saw repeated interference with representative institutions. The dissolution of the first Constituent Assembly in 1954 showed how hard it was to establish the supremacy of constitutional procedures. Personal interests, executive interference and weak respect for institutional authority undermined constitutional traditions, and political actors relied increasingly on administrative power, weakening the rule of law and leaving the system open to authoritarian intervention.

1. Concentration of power in the President

The Constitution concentrated extensive executive authority in President Ayub Khan, who held substantial control over the administration, the appointment of ministers and the working of government. There was little political accountability, and the legislature had limited ability to restrain him. This weakened the separation of powers, encouraged authoritarian government and failed to give a satisfactory balance between the executive and representative institutions.

2. Undemocratic nature of the Constitution

It set up a controlled form of democracy rather than direct popular participation. Citizens elected Basic Democrats locally, and these formed the electoral college that elected the President and the national and provincial legislatures. The people could not elect the President directly, and the President had extensive powers, including appointing ministers and dissolving the National Assembly under the constitutional provisions. Ayub Khan’s victory in the 1965 presidential election against Fatima Jinnah intensified criticism of the indirect system and of the government’s influence over the process. Many groups saw the system as a means of maintaining Ayub Khan’s authority rather than genuine representation.

3. Principle of parity between East and West Pakistan

Parity was maintained in central representation. East Pakistan had about 56 per cent of the population but equal representation with West Pakistan. Its leaders argued that representation should be based on population and that parity restricted the majority’s political influence. This deepened tensions between the wings and weakened confidence in the system.

4. Continuation of the One Unit Scheme

One Unit (1955) merged the provinces and administrative areas of West Pakistan into a single province and continued under the 1962 framework, helping to maintain parity. Many leaders and people in Sindh, the NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and Balochistan opposed it, believing it weakened provincial autonomy and regional identity. Its continuation aggravated regional grievances and made a broadly accepted constitutional system harder to achieve.

5. Public demand for a parliamentary system

Many parties and democratic leaders favoured a parliamentary system in which the government is collectively responsible to the elected legislature. They argued it would give more opportunities for participation and make the executive answerable to elected representatives, while the presidential system concentrated authority in one office and limited the role of parties. This disagreement weakened public acceptance of the Constitution and increased opposition to Ayub Khan’s rule.

6. Restrictions on fundamental rights and political activities

The original text had no comprehensive enforceable catalogue of fundamental rights, and these were formally restored through the First Amendment (1963). Even so, the government kept imposing restrictions on political activity and freedom of expression. Opposition leaders faced pressure, and public criticism was often met with administrative restrictions and force. This weakened civil liberties and the scope for peaceful opposition, and public dissatisfaction grew.

7. Student protests and the democratic movement

By the end of 1968 there was widespread dissatisfaction across Pakistan. Students played a significant role in the agitation, joined by workers, lawyers, political activists and others. They demanded democratic government, political freedoms, an end to authoritarian rule and greater accountability, and the movement spread to both East and West Pakistan. Its scale showed that the system lacked sufficient public support, and administrative measures alone could no longer contain the opposition.

8. Rise of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and opposition politics

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto emerged as a leading opponent in Ayub Khan’s final years. He resigned as Foreign Minister in 1966 after disagreeing over the Tashkent Declaration, signed after the 1965 war with India, then criticised the government and supported demands for change. Through the Pakistan People’s Party, founded in 1967, he mobilised support for reform. At the same time Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League played a major role in East Pakistan, where demands for provincial autonomy and representation were growing. These movements reflected the wide rejection of the existing arrangements.

9. Resignation of Ayub Khan and abrogation of the Constitution

By early 1969 the combined pressure of student demonstrations, opposition parties, labour protests and unrest had badly weakened the government, and its attempts to control the agitation failed. Ayub Khan resigned on 25 March 1969 and transferred power to General Yahya Khan, Commander-in-Chief of the army, who imposed martial law and abrogated the Constitution the same day. The crisis ended with another military intervention instead of being settled through representative institutions, showing the presidential system’s failure to establish lasting constitutional government.