Now that the mandated unity required to achieve the constitutional amendment and its subsequent legislation altering the service terms of various government branches is behind us, coalition members are scrambling to distance themselves from the ruling government, and are quick to claim they were never part of the process in the first place.
Following the Pakistan People’s Party, Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F) Chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has now declared the recently passed laws “condemnable,” asserting they negate the spirit of the 26th amendment and undermine basic human rights.
On their own, such remarks might warrant attention, as one could objectively critique both the amendment and the legislation it birthed. However, coming from Maulana Fazlur Rehman, these comments ring hollow. The reality is that none of this lawmaking would have been possible without his explicit and strategic support for each piece of legislation.
It is worth noting that the government relied heavily on extensive negotiations and behind-the-scenes diplomacy to secure the Maulana’s cooperation. Without his backing, the numbers needed for these legislative changes would not have materialised. Furthermore, Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s professed reverence for the 26th amendment, which he now uses as a benchmark for good governance, is ironic. He once vehemently opposed the very same amendment, labelling it a dangerous proposal that should never be passed—until, of course, negotiations, political manoeuvring, and deal-making changed his stance. This history casts doubt on the sincerity of his current criticisms.
The more plausible explanation is that this is yet another example of coalition partners manufacturing superficial opposition to the ruling government. By doing so, they aim to appease their voter bases, project a façade of independence, and preserve the ability to later claim they had always stood against controversial decisions. This strategy appears less about genuine dissent and more about political posturing for posterity.