The nation of Pakistan gained independence in the 1940s from the imperialist British and has maintained her status quo of retaining slave mindset. With the rule of law compromised and trampled at every occasion, the people have found themselves unworthy of being called a progressive lot by the Global society. The priorities were set by a specific institution and the elements of authority were held unaccountable. The Pakistani political history back-to-back has been subjected to conspiracies and illegal developments in the political arena, where a certain authority figure crossed boundaries that were set up in a legal framework. Today, we witness the same parallel line of government, issuing orders and running authority in an inconspicuous manner. This has hampered the critical-thinking capacity as people are unaware of the fact how the powerful institution has utilisied unfair and unjust means to glorify their role. Every move, every act has been contradictory to their prescribed role. Somewhere, something went terribly wrong. Why did a nation-state that was attained through a democratic struggle go down the drain through the post-independence years; by accepting a status quo that was inherently contradictory to the purpose of achieving a nation-state?

Is it then something odd that we find ourselves in a mess or that the goals we set to achieve to make this country great were obliterated through massive capitulation of the working-organs of the country? The civil society has taken long to take a stand; the problem is not limited to scenario. It is that they have taken a wrong one. Parts of the civil society demand that Nawaz Sharif should resign. Will this solve the problems we had turned blind eye to in the past political history? The truth is that the conscience of the nation has been hijacked to deter them from gaining benefit from secular, liberal and democratic principles. Nothing here contradicts the true spirit of Islam. It's a matter of educating people about matters that affect their way of thinking and acting. The commission on Panama Leaks will be set up soon – according to Prime Minister's statement after landing in Pakistan. Here, it is imperative to look at this matter in a broader sense. The group that was foremost in demanding commission is Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf. The leader, Imran Khan, has denied almost every report finding under three different Chief Justices; whom he had regarded as person 'fit' for the job. This approach is disastrous and sets a horrible example to the people who follow him, blindly.

Contrast the approach to the reality. Denying rule of law at one hand and glorifying an institution that has repeatedly destroyed the covenants of the Constitution. Is this what our conscience has achieved since independence ? The COAS Raheel Sharif speaks as if he gives orders to his seniors. At the Military Signals center, he stated that accountability should be across the board and corruption is rampant and should be dealt with an iron-fist. Kudos to the ill-informed who consider it as a development that was 'bound' to occur considering the current political scenario. Can the COAS give 'warning' to the ruling political party or the political system of dire consequences? It is a known fact that he has given word promises with little effect in the past and present. If accountability should be across the board, then start with the Institution under your control and target the big fishes like Kayani and Musharraf not the handful low level officers who were given sentence back in 2012/13 – but DG-ISPR could not speak about it. Stop behaving like a third-world country. Considering rule of law as a tool for subverting circumstances through personal endeavors has damaged our nation’s capability to act in consideration of sensible and intelligent approach focused on cohesiveness. The commission set-up on Panama Leaks will report its findings. Before that, the Chief Justice has to summon the Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif for the remarks that were out of his Jurisdiction. Has rule of law no value? Considering the factor of moral duty as a 'benefit of doubt' , it is the COAS who should hold accountability within the contours of his authority in order to set an example in his institution and not export his 'glorified' ideas through forced means into the peoples' mind. This is not how dignified men act. You are subject to the rule of law.

What is rule of law? Is it how Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad said No to the General Pervez Musharraf on the issue of privatising Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi-a project that was sponsored by the Russians? Why did the Chief Justice take a stand in front of a dictator who had usurped power and taken decisions at his own behest? We have seen Malik Riaz setting a trend of property and construction but lo and behold, this was something unknown and unheard as the history only revealed dark chapters of judicial killings. A new sheriff was in town. The President and Ex-COAS General Pervez Musharraf had to step down to the demands of lawyers’ movement led by Aitzaz Ahsan. Today, it is the same Aitzaz who following his credentials is capable of leading a powerful and effective opposition. PPP had set a trend of Civil liberty and Democracy. Judicial movement exacerbated and we witnessed a successful completion of five year tenure of PPP culminating in a democratic transition. As PML-N gained victory with a 2/3rd majority, it was a superb achievement for people who endeavoured to create an environment that instilled cohesiveness. How was it achieved? Zia created political parties under Army espionage. These parties ruled in respective area with specific terms of ruling their constituencies based on party manifesto. MQM was the darling of General Pervez Musharraf. Karachi became a quagmire from a city of lights. Now, the value of 'representation' associated with the worthy companion i.e.  the Rule of Law is a lethal combination that can drive out darkness of 'parhay likkhay jaahil'. Every anti-terrorism operation has been carried in era of civil governments – never by Army dictators. PTI forgot what it had initially stood for: justice, humanity and self-esteem. It is all void without the rule of law.

Western nations have reached a point of distinction on the basis of upholding rule of law. Muslim states have faced constant decline due to unaccountable rulers. Fancy a dictator and you lose your own worth.  Westphalian sovereignty was the brainchild of politicians and diplomats, not generals. It is not the domain of General Fateh Al Sisi to be the ruler over Egypt. Humanitarian intervention has a questionable or weak basis in international law but such roles were adopted on the premise that they constituted humanitarian intervention aimed at preventing genocide, large-scale loss of lives or ethnic cleansing. Iraq quagmire was a result of American program to restore democracy through an armed conflict. This was justification for what was simply the promotion of political and economic interests under the Project for New American Century program under auspices of Pentagon – not American Congress. The PNAC was tailored to achieve militaristic aims through armed means.

Absolute governing power is the legislative – the law maker parliament. This is in contrast to the two pillars of state i.e. Federation (Executive) and Judiciary. As natural law is above positive law i.e. man-made law, similarly, the Parliament is above Army or Martial Law. Studying Bodin's theory of Absolute and Perpetual further reveals how the governing authority can exercise its power. Hobbes added further to Bodin's theory through the possibility of indivisible power. This authority is vested into final authority i.e. social contraction or proponents of common good/common wealth.

Rousseau defined popular sovereignty as factor of people who are the legitimate sovereign. Debate emerges on the distinction between Constitutional Monarchism and Represebtative Democracy. Rousseau states in his book, Social Contract:

‘Law is the general will of in regard to some object of common interest; but though the general will is always right and always desires the good, its judgment is not always enlightened, and consequently does not see where the common good lies; hence the necessity of the legislator. But the legislator has, of himself, no authority; he is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone i.e. the sovereign or general will has authority to make and impose them.'

Rousseau in his book, Treatise of the Social Contract states that sovereign and government, as separate entities, will have to evolve through the process of resurgence of popular will that will culminate to the conclusion of verifying the assumption that the people have an unbiased mean to ascertain the general will as deterrence. In effect, this will lead the popular will to converge both, sovereign and government. This will be inclusive to concepts of absoluteness and exclusivity. Absoluteness i.e. degree to which the authority cannot be restricted through Constitution, by laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control. International law; policies and actions of neighbouring states; cooperation and respect of populace; means of enforcement; and resources to enact policy are factors that limit sovereignty.  This in its whole contour and operational effectiveness can apply only to elected representatives. Exclusivity i.e. jurisdiction ; the effect of the degree to which a decisions made by a Sovereign authority can be contradicted by another authority. Max Weber proposes that any Sovereignty is community's monopoly. Any group claiming same right must be brought under that same authority i.e. Imran Khan should accept recent finding of previous commissions. Legal infringements i.e. Army intervention should be proven illegitimate or otherwise contested and defeated to be brought under the yoke of the sovereign. Obama plans to veto the anti-Saudi Bill proposed in the American congress by stating that it will unleash a circle of activity that will lead the foreigners to sue US on non-stop basis. This is how the executive aims to circumvent the consequences of insane militaristic endeavours. Hence; subordinate entities such as international law, competing branches of government and authourities represent legal infringements on exclusivity. De facto legal infringements arise through religious bodies, corporations and competing political parties. These legal infringements are to be neutralised through Social contracts powered by bodies that govern the Rule of Law. Army as institution or Raheel Sharif as COAS are not eligible to run private errands which can obstruct civil liberties.

Aside from classical, rationalist or imperialist view; the Internationalists view sovereignty as outdated concept. It is considered unnecessary obstacle to achieving peace, in line with their belief on 'global community.' This, in effect, contradicts the view that Law is sovereign i.e. true state of law, the question of its applicability and enforceability.  Pakistan's legal and democratic system is one of the best in the world. Creative democracy, advocated by American philosopher John Dewey, is the manifestation in practical terms of true democratic and legal principles. It incorporates all possible forms of government and minimises the lapses. James Madison critiqued basic democracy and enhanced the concept of Republic where democratisation involved relevance of education and human capital- and within them of cognitive ability to increasing tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Caroll Quigley stresses that there are two effects of elements of education and cognitive ability. Cognitive effect is (competence to make rational choices, better information-processing) and an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights); which itself depends on intelligence.

Robert Michaels asserts that democracy can never be fully realised but it can be developed automatically in the act of striving for democracy.

Dr Harold Wayra in his research suggests that 'democracy is in fact an ongoing 'process of meaning formation'. Any claim to substance such as collective good, the public interest or the will of the nation is subject to the competitive struggle and times for authority and Government. The seat of power is there, but remains open to constant change. It would be realistic to factor in the emerging trends, which internationalists would favourably include as part of democracy based on historical terms by referring to it as a process that supports a continual and potentially never ending process of social reconstruction. Considering contemporary global socio-economic and political situation, a German military think-tank issued a report, in which they concluded that peak oil might change the global economy where parts of population around the globe would perceive it as generic systemic crisis – impeding democratisation. This would create room for '' ideological and extremist alternatives to existing forms of government.''

The above mentioned theories inferred from practical knowledge and broad experience confer that the changing modern times have reached a saturation point – where internationalists’ viewpoint has emerged as new definition to the post-modern society. Islamic societies were way behind in liberalism, democracy and secularism. Pakistan, founded as an Islamic republic, is in an impending struggle to change the status quo. The power center, Army, has to rely on democratic government to realise the objective of national goals. Turkey emerged as a core state but it will only wield power as a regional player – not kingmaker; not even Iran, where reformists are emerging in the political paradigm. Studying the concept democracy in its depth reveals approach to principles that suggest the superiority of divine will over the popular will. Hence, sovereignty of Almighty within democratic setup, as a reality, is inculcated in an Islamic Republic. Amidst the cross-fertilisation of 'Democratic forces' and 'miltablishment endeavors' over a period of six decades, Pakistan has gone through a process of democratic struggle and reached the climax of 'political crisis'. Executive, judiciary and legislative should be support pillars of the state – not of any particular faction or institution. Imran Khan has reached a dead end and all among the stakeholder should have 'vision' to realise how we can achieve our goals relative to national interests and move forward – as the two largest parties in the National Assembly have been doing for some time. The case of Peak Oil has caused Saudi-American diplomatic row; which needs to be probed in the context of the situation prevailing post-Arab Spring in the global scenario. Peak Oil and 9/11 bill is part of a game that occurred at the time when the world is focused on the repercussions of Panama Papers – which has significantly targeted Vladimir Putin and Nawaz Sharif. Both Russia and Pakistan are on verge of defining a new relationship that will foster a Eurasian alliance. This is particularly evident in the interaction among legislatures of Eurasian states which will have long term impact on regional prosperity. Speaker Pakistan National Assembly, Ayaz Sadiq, attended the 1st Conference of speakers of Parliaments of Eurasia countries held in Moscow, Russian Federation.

Ayaz Sadiq acknowledged that the Eurasian region is passing through defining moments in terms of economic and strategic developments at regional and global level. The speaker stressed upon the need to exploit the true potential of the region through enhanced cooperation; the rise of Eurasia as the political and economic epicenter was fast becoming a reality.

He further added:

'Changes in the global power equation and structure that we are witnessing today will shape strategic and economic developments in the times to come.'

He highlighted Pakistan's role in the global war on terrorism and regarded the notion of peaceful resolution of all outstanding issues an imperative measure for regional peace and stability. Ayaz Sadiq -irrespective of his political affiliation – not only represented the Pakistani legislature but was a symbol of true values of a democratic, Islamic Republic. The transition from authoritarian atheist Soviet Union to an Orthodox Christian Federation of Russia, according to Masha Gessen, saw the unlikely rise of Vladimir Putin. The convergence, resurgence and deterrence factor between what the cases of Ayaz Sadiq and Vladimir Putin represent is identical in formulation of practices of struggle. Ayaz Sadiq set out as PTI representative. Putin was an ex-KGB agent who worked for Soviet oligarch. They changed the course by becoming part of a struggle; which became a benchmark for the voters. An element of authoritarianism exists in socio-economic outlook and political setup of both countries. However, according to John Duckitt, a link between authoritarianism and collectivism exists which submerges individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.

An interesting debate pursues the findings whether illiberal democracies i.e. procedural democracies can be a positive path to self-reformation through progressive points of self-determination. Procedural democracies lack the more democratic features of rule of law, an independent judiciary, along with a further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another. It can be said that authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another; where it is possible for democracies to possess strong authoritarian elements; as the factor of submission to an authority is common to both. Extended research shows that low-income authoritarian regimes have certain technocratic, 'efficiency-enhancing' advantages over low income democracies, helping the authoritarian regimes generate development. This view is countered by the argument that there is no 'authoritarian advantage' and that there is a 'democratic advantage' instead (Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T.Siegle, Michael M. Weinstein) and Halperin further argues that democracies 'realise superior development performance' over authoritarianism. It is adamant to mention the role of Lex Luthor in the film, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, where he proclaims that if God is all Powerful then He cannot be All Good and if He is All Good then He cannot be All Powerful. The policy points of Unger are important in this regard and worth to be read to be adopted as concrete policy proposals in areas of economic development, education, civil society and political democracy. In reality, this practice would lead to involvement of radical developments in politics at center and social innovation in localities; which would turn conflicts over control and uses of power into an opportunity to question and revise the basic arrangements of social life through a rapid resolution of political impasse. Roberto Mangabeira Unger's concept of 'Empowered Democracy' is hailed as the only such constructive version of society in legal studies; which was produced in a response to the repressiveness and rigidity of contemporary liberal democratic society. The key strategy was to combine the freedom of commerce and 'good' governance at the local level with the ability of political parties at the central level to promote radical social experiments that would bring about a decisive change in the social and political institutions. There are further five points of Political Democracy suggested by Unger, which call for high energy system that diminishes the dependence of change upon crisis.

Good governance is a term used in international development literature in order to relate to how public institutions 'conduct public affairs' and 'manage public resources'. It involves a process of decision-making by which implementation takes place – as a standard of measure. The concept has emerged as a measure to compare ineffective economies or political bodies with working economies and viable or effective political bodies; through a set of requirements that conform to the respective agenda. At the level of state, the Constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organisation is governed.

Constitutionalism is upheld in the level attained by a political party in being 'Constitutional' i.e. according to Scott Gordon (Controlling the State: Constitutionalism) is the:

'Extent to which a party contains institutionalised mechanisms of power control for the protection of interests and liberties of the citizenry.'

Any such violation by an official through actions outside constitutional or statutory authority would be ultra vires. Federalism is a part of the powers granted by the Constitution where lines of accountability are divided between presidential or parliamentary system of Government. Irrespective of power structure prevailing in Russian Federation or Islamic Republic of Pakistan; Ayaz Sadiq and Vladimir Putin are two relative cases where the divine will or natural law exhibit superiority over popular will through the meaningful formation of concept, 'highest law is the moral law'. To further elaborate the minute detail, it is important to delve into the sea of knowledge of Constitutionalism. Army is an institution that is answerable and subject to the Constitution. As the internationalists view is the new Westphalian version of sovereignty and democracy, will the Army's militaristic role be redefined in the contemporary times as borders are becoming 'transparent'?

The study of constitutions is not synonymous with the study of Constitutionalism. Constitutionalism goes a step further then incorporating the descriptive role of Constitutional liberalism (principles of classical liberalism and rule of law according to Fareed Zakaria) where in addition it categorises the militaristic-industrial complex as the extended contour and incorporated context that inculcates the historical perspective in the prescriptive approach to Constitution.

William H. Hamilton combined the dual aspect of Descriptive and Prescriptive approach in a statement:

'Constitutionalism is the name given to the trust which men repose in the power of words engrossed on parchment to keep a government in order.'

Justice Kazim Ali Shah's verdict was favourable for Democracy where irrespective of the winner – it was the authority of government that was enforced on October 12th 2015 election following court order; not the force of ruling party. This happened in Hashmi V Dogar National Assembly election on October 17th 2014 where no faction or an Institution such as Army wrested control outside the powers vested in the Constitution; unlike Azadi March dharna. Panama Leaks has ushered a strong pressure point and new trends are being set around the world. COAS Raheel Sharif has taken strict action against corrupt officers in his institution after he issued controversial statements. Constitutional questions and questions of Constitutionalism have arisen as focus of analysis regarding distribution of power and authority as the nascent nation-state has struggled with problems of peace and war, taxation and representation. 'Questions of Constitutionalism' outweighed in importance when compared to 'constitutional questions' in the sense that they were open-ended questions that drew answer on basis of competing views. In this regard, political and constitutional controversies have sought to register the questions of Constitutionalism: how to identify the collective sovereign, what powers the collective sovereign possessed and how one recognised when that sovereign acted. These credentials developed post-independence about the sovereignty of people and the ongoing role of the people to monitor the constitutional order that rested on their sovereign authority. British constitutional scholar A.V. Dicey has assessed that the Britain's unwritten constitution is based on premise of 'law of constitution' and 'conventions of constitution' which account for body of laws and the Constitutional or Political ethics, respectively.

James Buchanan used the term, ‘constitutional economics’, to highlight the intertwined roles of economics and constitution in the sense that they function for at least seven generations. The purpose is to avoid uni-dimensional thinking with the adjustment of Constitution in regard to pragmatic economic decisions and to balance interests of the state and society against those of Individuals and their constitutional rights to personal freedom and private happiness. The example set by COAS Raheel Sharif in the means of targeting officers under his command; what he intended to clarify is the position of Army as an institution that regards discipline at highest level. However, was it in the interest of the nation-state for him to act in the certain manner when the accused had been sentenced to verdict more than three years, ago? The timing suggests otherwise.

Russian School of Constitutional Economics was created in this regard where it allowed for the idea of a combined economic and constitutional analysis in the legislative (e.g. budgetary) process to function according to state constitution (constitutional questions and questions on constitutionalism). It focused on possible methods to overcome arbitrariness in the economic and financial decision-making e.g. the military expenses may dwarf the budget spending on education and culture. The Russian model of constitutional economics focused on concept of state Constitution under the auspices of transitional and developing economies. A multi-dimensional approach incorporates the modernisation theory. Where the socio-economic conditions improve based on capitalist democracy; upon which the democracy delivers and introduces realistic values to the system which in turn strengthens state constitution and allows democracy to deliver even in face of crisis like Panama leaks. Pakistan's ruling party should focus on Russian model where transitional political and economic systems  follow the practice of constitutional economics as a decisive prerequisite in the process to  'restore' Constitution (legal injunctions along with charters of public organisations, unwritten rules of various clubs, informal groups etc.) as an abstract legal document(s)  relative to the economic policy of the state; where the combined  ideas of internationalism and institutionalism have become important in the modern era.

University of Maryland Constitutional History Professor Herman Belz's assessment of Constitutionalism is:

'Constitutionalism... ought to be recognised as a distinctive ideology and approach to political life...Constitutionalism not only establishes the institutional and intellectual framework, but it also supplies much of the rhetorical currency with which the political transactions are carried out.'

No constitution can be interpret or enforce itself. David Fellman noted that there is confusion prevailing in equating the written Constitution with the conclusion that a state or polity is based upon constitutionalism i.e.  every state has a Constitution, every state has institutions, every state has an established way of doing things  ... constitution follows provisions customary found within such a document, it does not necessarily follow that it is committed to constitutionalism.

According to analysts, the prescriptive approach to Constitutionalism in underlying sense implies that the field of public action is partitioned between delegated powers to the government and the rights of individuals, each of which is a restriction of the other, and that no powers be delegated that are beyond the competence of government. In essence, it is the proposition that the government is limited by the Constitution. Under the title of Constitution, extensively varying degrees of separation of powers can be vested to the three branches of government: executive, judicial and legislative – the standard model defined by Baron De Montesquieu. A Constitution may change from being real to a facade and back again as democratic and autocratic governments succeed each other.

David Fellman suggests:

‘Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of Rule of Law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment (timing of COAS's action against corrupt officials) or mere fiat of public officials... it may be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited Government under a higher law.'

Further we will discuss Oliver Cromwell's concept of republican democracy. However, legal scholar Jeremy Waldron contends that constitutionalism is often undemocratic. Though there exist the concepts of popular Constitutionalism or democratic Constitutionalism, the democratic view of Constitution differs in approach through the systemic way of allowing people to control the sources of law and harness the apparatus of Government to their aspirations. Murray Rothbard criticised the subject of Constitutionalism by grounding the realistic analysis that Constitutionalism is incapable of restraining governments and does not protect the rights of citizens from their governments. The role of interpreters i.e. for instance the Supreme Court; where 'inevitably' the result will be Court orders or findings to place imprimatur or even broader powers for its own government. Though, the lines between 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' will blur due to the fact that these divisions are part of the same government and the same set of rulers. However; this is not applicable in all circumstances for e.g. Kazim Ali Shah's decision was decisive for the doctrine of necessity, although no proof had been found regarding fraudulent election. Islamic Constitutionalism extensively deals with concept of immunity in different cases and limitations imposed on the State.

With such criticisms leveled to question the effectiveness of the legislature, how do we ensure the credibility of the pillar of the state to function as an organ that shall support workings of public bodies? With the inclusion of 'instruments of government' in 1653, the first drafted written Constitution was adopted by a modern state that led to the creation of modern Constitutional theory which incorporated concepts of separation of powers, the written constitution, judicial review, bicameralism etc. whose background can be traced to the experiments of that period after the Army and Agitators had pressurised the government to accept 'heads of proposals' which was drafted by General John Lambert to be a basis for Constitutional settlement.

The parliament accordingly declared:

'That the people, under God, the original of all Just power, that the commons of England, being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme power in this Nation.'

In effect, Oliver Cromwell was installed on a non-hereditary life appointment i.e. Lord Protector of the Commonwealth – the executive authority above a state council of 21 members. The sitting of triennial Parliaments at least once every five months was declared mandatory. This 'instrument of government' was later replaced after five years by England's second, and last, codified Constitution i.e. Humble Petition and Advice, which was advocated by Sir Christopher Packe. Resolution offered Oliver Cromwell the authority of non-hereditary monarchy; asserted Parliament's new role over issuing taxation, provided an independent council to advise the king and 'safeguarded' the triennial meetings of the parliament. Though, the modified version included clause on abolition of kingship; it was removed after the death of Cromwell with the restoration of true monarchy.

The strengthening part that fills the gaps or any lapses is the concept of basic law. The Russians term constitution as set of rules and principles that define the nature and extent of government. Most constitutions reflect powers in the three branches i.e. executive, legislative and judiciary but indulge in a step further to identify and work the relationship of institutions within those branches. For example, executive branches can be divided on heads of government, government departments/ministries, executive agencies and a civil service/administration. Entrenchment is regarded as an inherent feature in codified constitutions. In UK, laws which modify written or unwritten provisions are passed on simple majority in the parliament. There is no special case of procedures which require constitutional amendments i.e the principle of parliamentary sovereignty exists which asserts that no sovereign parliament is bound by the acts of its predecessors and there is no higher authority that can create law to bind the Parliament. The sovereign is the head of state with important powers, such as the power to declare war; the uncodified and unwritten Constitution removes all these powers in practice.

Disassociating from the descriptive and prescriptive approach, Constitutionalism primarily deals with the legitimacy of the government. An assessment of American Constitutionalism notes that the idea of constitutionalism serves to define what it is that 'grants and guides the legitimate exercise of government authority. This idea promoted through American Constitutionalism is described to be related to 'advanced thinking' by the Historian Gordon S. Wood, where the nature of Constitution in which the Constitution was conceived to be ''a'' set of fundamental rules by which even supreme power of the state shall be governed. Ultimately, American Constitutionalism evaluated the collective sovereignty of the people to be the source that legitimised American governments. However, often, the word Constitutionalism is used in rhetorical sense as a political argument that equates the views of the speaker or the writer with a preferred view of Constitution. However, one of the most salient features of Constitutionalism is that it describes and prescribes both the source and limit of government's power.

Thus, it is the right of nations to choose path to self-determination, which is considered as a cardinal principle in the modern international law. Jus Cogens rule states that nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and International political status with no interference. These rules were debated upon creation of states in the beginning of 20th century; where they became secular at time of creation of the state or upon secularisation of the state. Secularism suggests popular sovereignty. It is a belief in Islam that Almighty Allah is forbearing of lapses in responsibilities towards Him but is strict in accountability of the social responsibilities. Thus, does theocracy embody the basic principles of democratic equal rights that form an integral part of secularism? According to this approach, theocracy and democracy aren't different in nature. Democracy is direct. Theocracy is indirect. Islam extols importance of link between power, freedom and faith, for the rule of God is primarily regarded as an internal rule of heart. Ijtihad induces that it is not only the divine guidance or guided officials who represent the structure but also the factor of trustworthiness, wise and knowledgability so as to deal justly with matter at hand and the people in subject. Prophet Joseph's ethical struggle and genuine efforts towards his people led to the whole Nation to be rescued from drought. Furthermore; the 'Charter of Medina' did not represent a theocracy but a territorial polity based on religious pluralism. The higher power vests power in how the ruler treats his subjects.

Pakistan is not a theocracy; though, Islam is the state religion.  Secularism differs in the concept of modernisation where traditionalists’ viewpoint is no longer followed. Hence, modern democracies are generally recognised as secular, where secularism represents a code of duty, founded on purely human considerations, and intended mainly for those who deem theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Secularism is a political doctrine, not under atheistic influence. In effect, if theocracy adopts an autocratic stance, it will contradict human values. Caliph Umer suspended the punishments for civil offences in the period of drought; where he stated that the State could not fulfill the basic responsibility and hence cannot enforce a subject to an effect. The element of Ijtihad gains significance in this regard. As a society adopts secular practices, it leads to a democratic setup. Pakistan has to go through the process of secularisation to identify links between Qur'an, Constitutionalism and democracy. It will lead to a progressive and powerful Islamic Republic of Pakistan - a core state at the crossroad of Africa-Eurasiia.

It will enable Pakistan to pursue the stance that Moral Law is the Highest Law - symbolised in Russian intervention in Syrian war which led to a just solution through ceasefire. Putin has earned credentials on the basis of which he has agreed to pursue the strategic aim of ending Israeli occupation of Golan heights (Syria lost this territory in Arab-Israeli war)- after Pakistan has managed to successfully pass UN Resolution against Illegal Israeli settlements. Can the Status Quo be changed after Panama Leaks targeted Putin and Nawaz Sharif - in order to maintain Divine or popular will of 'Highest Law is the Moral Law' ? Desperate times call for desperate measures.