Proposal.docx

Research Proposal A comparitive anlysis of American and Pakistan’s Federallism

By Alia Urooj Student of B.S (Hons) Pakistan Studies (2015-19) Roll No. 02 Supervisor Miss. Robina Khan Ph.D Scholar in Political Science Department of B.S (Hons) Pakistan Studies Government Girls College No.2 Dera Ismail Khan

Recommendation Sheet Certified that the research proposal of Alia Urooj Roll No. 02 Student of B.S (Hons) Pakistan Studies With the title A comparitive analysis of American and Pakistan’s Federallism Being scrutinized is recommended for submission to the Board of Advanced Studies and Research for further review and approval.

Supervisor: Miss Robina Khan

Member: Research Guidance Committee

Chapter 01 Introduction 1.1 Background: Federalism is a system of government that establishes a constitutionally specified division of powers between different levels of government. There are usually two main levels: (a) a national, central or federal level; and (b) a state, provincial or regional level (Bulmer, 2015). Federalism is the that type of government System that guarantee the constitutional division of powers among the central government and its units in such a manner that these two sets of government functions to achieve common goals (Khan.etal, 2016). By late 17th and early 18th centuries the use of the word had evolved to include agreements between states. By 1721, for example, the term “federation” was being used as meaning a “united league”. The need to link separate distinct political communities in order to achieve common objectives is an ancient one. Various leagues for specific purposes were created normally for short, identifiable periods of time with a clear objective such as military protection. Some of the better known examples are alliances of Greek city states or mediaeval Italian towns. More permanent unions were not easily created. First of the modern era would include Switzerland, followed by the Netherlands (the United Provinces) but they were originally very loose unions with weak central authorities. The United States made the key breakthrough. The states originally formed a loose relationship with weak central government (the Confederation). They replaced this system with a new constitution in 1789 creating the modern United States and defining federalism in its current use (Woodard, 1995). The United States of America is a country of many governments. The federal government is of course the largest, but the governments of the fifty states and thousands of smaller units—counties, cities, towns and villages—are no less important. When the 13 North American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776, they recognized the need to coordinate their efforts in the war and to cooperate with each other generally. To these ends, they adopted the Articles of Confederation, a constitution which created a league of sovereign states which committed the states to cooperate with each other in military affairs, foreign policy and other important areas. To remedy the defects of the Articles (or, in the words of the Constitution of 1787, “to create a more perfect union”), George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and other nationalist leaders called upon the states to send delegates to a constitutional convention to meet in the city of Philadelphia in May 1787. It was, of course, that convention that produced the Constitution of the United States. The framers of the Constitution rejected both confederal and unitary models of government. Instead, they based the new American

government on an entirely new theory: federalism. In a confederation, the member states make up the union. This brief history is important for two reasons. First, the American federal system is not simply a decentralized hierarchy. The states are not administrative units that exist only to implement policies made by some central government. The states are fully functioning constitutional polities in their own right, empowered by the American people to make a wide range of policies for their own citizens. Second, the framers expected that the states would be the principal policymakers in the federal system. The powers granted to the federal government are relatively few in number and deal mainly with foreign and military affairs and national economic issues, such as the free flow of commerce across state lines. Most domestic policy issues were left to the states to resolve in keeping with their own histories, needs and cultures. The first 75 years of American development (1790– 1865) were marked by constitutional and political conflicts about the nature of American federalism ( Fuller , 1997) . The theory of Pakistan ensures that the federal units of the national government will have all the independence they will find in the Constitution of the United States of America, Canada and Australia.. After independence Pakistan adopted a system of federalism on an equal footing under India's Repeated Act of 1935. Pakistan federal structure has faced problems from the very start because of the demographic dominance of East Pakistan with 55% of the population. In 1952, the report of the Basic Principles Committee drafted a constitution based on the principles of equal representation in the Senate, but left the composition of the House of Representatives unclear. The Bengalis considered this deplorable, being the majority of Pakistan. The Bengalis demand that they have a majority in both Houses that are equally acceptable to the West Wing provinces, which feared losing their economic and political influence to the East Wing in such situation. Formed by bureaucrat Chaudhry Mohamed Ali, the first constitution (a hopeless delay) of 1956, "solved" this problem by adopting parity principle between Pakistan's two wings, with 150 seats each in a single-chamber national legislature. Thus, a bipolar union is unstable, and it has been observed that its progenitors are more likely to fail. Unlike the rule in multi-ethnic unions, the boundaries of federal units have not been revised to accommodate regionally concentrated language communities. In addition, there was a refusal to recognize "regional languages", which prevented provinces from adopting languages of their choice. Pakistan's early constitutional Experiences were a breach of the federal era and failure to build compromise. However, even before the elections were held under this central constitutional arrangement, the bureaucratic and military weapons of the state conspired to seize power in 1958 and to create a more centralized political and administrative structure, reflecting the full-fledged executive constitution of 1962. All power in the center, which deprived the provinces of any involvement in government affairs, which generated the birth of hatred and mistrust. The second constitution, once again drafted by a bureaucratic military oligarchy, did not refer to

the federal system in its description of the name of the state. The Constitution completely excluded the list of provinces from the topics and prepared a centralized list of 49 items, along with a simultaneous list. Thus, the power of the President and the unicameral Legislative Council has been retained. Provincial governments will be presided over by presidents appointed by the president with enormous power and influence. The most important was the centralization imposed by the Constitution. The two constitutions provided for a system of division of power that preserves all important subjects of the Center. Even for the subjects given to the provinces, policymaking was largely within the central sphere. Moreover, federalism was too centralized, making the provinces dependent on the central government. The central organization of the state of the 1956 and 1962 constitution, which dominated the Punjabi hegemony, the backward and powerful bureaucratic bureaucracy, and the insensitivity to ethnic differences, led to the disastrous disintegration of the country in 1971 (Khan.etal, 2016). These current studies will evolutes the contrast between American and Pakistan’s federalism because there exist few similarities and several differences between the federalism of both the countries. In this research the researcher will emphasis on the weaknesses of Pakistan federallism. It is pure qualitative research with post positivist approach and in this research the researcher will analyze the history of federalism in Pakistan and United States of America. In this research the researcher will discuss about the nature of federalism with reference to the 18th constitutional amendment.

1.2 Statement of the problem: Pakistan established as a federal state in August 1947. Federalism has been persistent challenge for Pakistan, and Pakistan faced a severe deficit of federalism and decentralization of power which badly affected governance, political management, institutional imbalance etc. However, the federation of Pakistan is gradually moving towards maturity but it will take long time to match the US federation because there is a great difference between the federalism of both the countries.

1.3 Objectives of the Study:   

The aim of this research work is to evaluate the similarities between US and Pakistan’s federal systems. This study is an attempt to explore the differences between American and Pakistan’s federalism. This research is an attempt to analyze the current federal issues under 1973 constitution in the light of historical constitutions and political experiences of Pakistan.

 

The foremost objective of this research is to identify the fact that why Pakistan’s federalism is weak than the American federalism. To contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

1.4 Significance of the Study:  This research will provide organized facts and figures with regard to American’s and Pakistan’s federalism.  This research will helps the readers to know about different factors that contribute in the weakness of federal system of Pakistan.  This research will build an in-depth understanding of the federal politics and federal structure, in terms of both American and Pakistan.  This research will provide answer to this question: Why did Pakistan choose to adopt federalism?

1.5 Research questions: The study will answer the following questions: 1. How does a federal system work? 2. What are the similarities and dissimilarities in federal structure of Pakistan and US? 3. Why American’s federalism is strong than the Pakistan’s federalism? 4. What are the factors that are responsible for weak federation in Pakistan? 5. What is the role of 18th Amendment (1973 constitution) in the federal system of Pakistan? 6. What are the current federal issues faced via Pakistan?

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Existing Research 2.1.1 Definition of Federalism ‘Federalism is a political organization in which the activities of government are divided between regional governments and a central government in such a way that each kind of government has some activities on which it makes final decisions’ (Law, 2013).

2.1.2 History of American Federalism: The American system of federalism is considered to be the first one in the world. The American federalism history started when the English immigrants set their feet in the new world they started to create smaller townships, bigger counties and in the end states. Before the war of independence these states had taken care of themselves, they had their own government, interests and traditions. The, at the time 13 states, were quite resistant to entering a union together with the other 12 states. But they had something in common, something that in the end forced them to work together, they all wanted independence, independence from England (Tocqueville, 1997). So while the war of independence was going on, 1775-1783, they gave up 16 some of their power in favor of the union and winning the war. As long as the war was going on it was easy for the government to stay in power but when it was won the states did not really see any reasons to give up even more power, they wanted their sovereignty back. So this is basically when the discussion started, how much power should the states give up? The federal government was weak so in order to save the union a commission led by George Washington was created. After long deliberations the new constitution was ratified by all states and in 1789 the new federal government was in possession. When the framers were to create the legislative body there was these two interests also mentioned above to take into regard. The ones who wanted the states to get a lot of power and only wanted a national government where representative could meet and discuss issues that concerned them all, and those who wanted a strong federal government where all people in the former colonies could be one people. So it was difficult in a practical way to meet all requirements in order to please the all states. (Tocqueville, 1997) .The framers looked at two alternatives, the first was to give the states independence and let the majority of the states create common laws. By this way each state would have the same amount of power in the national government. This idea was called the New Jersey plan and was advocated by the smaller states.

The big problem here was of course that the bigger states did not see this as democratic and fair at all. Since they had a greater amount of people living in their states and should thereby get more power. Accordingly a second alternative was discussed; the Virginia plan’s idea was to have representatives based on population, all states would have a certain number of representatives depending on how big the population was. The smaller state could of course not accept this alternative since it would leave them completely powerless within the federal government (Petersson, 2004). So what should the framers do, how could they work this out in a democratic way? The answer is that the combined the two ways. They created the Senate as the principle of the states sovereignty and the House of Representative as the sovereignty of the people. The Senate consisted of two senators from each state, no matter how big it was, and the House of Representative had representatives in proportion to the population, as an example the state of New York had 40 representatives in the house and two senators while the state of Delaware had two senators but only one representative in the house (Tocqueville, 1997). As it is today, separation of power was of highest importance for the founders of the constitution. The method that the framers came up with in order to ensure this division of powers became known by the name “check and balances”. Check and balances became very important in the US federal system as well as for other federal systems trough out the world. The first of the three powers in the US system is the legislative power, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since this power consists of representatives of the states, this is where the different states have their chance to affect the decision making. The legislative branch main job is to pass federal law. The second branch is the Executive branch, which consists of the President. And the third branch is the judicial. The check and balance work so that each branch is given not only its own powers but also some power over the other two branches. Among the most familiar checks and balances are the president’s veto over congress and Congress’s power over the president trough its control of appointments to high executive posts and to the judiciary. With this separation of powers, states in the federation are with different levels of representation able to have an impact within the national level of the federation (Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, 2007).

2.1.3 History of Federalism in Pakistan The theory of Pakistan ensures that the federal units of the national government will have all the independence they will find in the Constitution of the United States of America, Canada and Australia. But some vital forces will remain in the central

government such as the monetary system, national defense and federal responsibilities‖ (Quid-e Azzam), November 1945.

a. Central Federal System (1947-1971) After independence Pakistan adopted a system of federalism on an equal footing under India's Repeated Act of 1935. Pakistan federal structure has faced problems from the very start because of the demographic dominance of East Pakistan with 55% of the population. In 1952, the report of the Basic Principles Committee drafted a constitution based on the principles of equal representation in the Senate, but left the composition of the House of Representatives unclear. The Bengalis considered this deplorable, being the majority of Pakistan. The Bengalis demand that they have a majority in both Houses that are equally acceptable to the West Wing provinces, which feared losing their economic and political influence to the East Wing in such situation. Formed by bureaucrat Chaudhry Mohamed Ali, the first constitution (a hopeless delay) of 1956, "solved" this problem by adopting parity principle between Pakistan's two wings, with 150 seats each in a single-chamber national legislature. Thus, a bipolar union is unstable, and it has been observed that its progenitors are more likely to fail (Adeny, 2007). Unlike the rule in multi-ethnic unions, the boundaries of federal units have not been revised to accommodate regionally concentrated language communities. In addition, there was a refusal to recognize "regional languages", which prevented provinces from adopting languages of their choice (Adeney, 2007). Pakistan's early constitutional experiences were a breach of the federal era and failure to build compromise. However, even before the elections were held under this central constitutional arrangement, the bureaucratic and military weapons of the state conspired to seize power in 1958 and to create a more centralized political and administrative structure, reflecting the full-fledged executive constitution of 1962. All power in the center, which deprived the provinces of any involvement in government affairs, which generated the birth of hatred and mistrust. The second constitution, once again drafted by a bureaucratic military oligarchy, did not refer to the federal system in its description of the name of the state. The Constitution completely excluded the list of provinces from the topics and prepared a centralized list of 49 items, along with a simultaneous list. Thus, the power of the President and the unicameral Legislative Council has been retained. Provincial governments will be presided over by presidents appointed by the president with enormous power and influence. The most important was the centralization imposed by the Constitution. The two constitutions provided for a system of division of power that preserves all important subjects of the Center. Even for the subjects given to the provinces, policymaking was largely within the central sphere. Moreover, federalism was too centralized, making the provinces dependent on the central government. The central organization of the state of the 1956 and 1962 constitution, which dominated the Punjabi hegemony, the backward and powerful bureaucratic bureaucracy, and the

insensitivity to ethnic differences, led to the disastrous disintegration of the country in 1971 (Nasir, 2007).

b. Federalism: Constitution of 1956 The 1956 constitution was federal in nature, but centered in a spirit that deliberately undermined ethnic divisions, unity of unity i.e. creation of one unit Called "West Pakistan". The Constitution attempted to mitigate the central impact of the Government of India Act of 1935 as under Article 106 (1), the Federal List was shortened by thirty-one items and sixty-one items earlier, and the list of provinces contained 94 items. While the simultaneous list was also reduced to 19 items, there were views that centralization of the administrative and economic development system by the Central Center Government. The central government was powerful in economic matters, development, national security and inter-provincial coordination (kundi and Jhangir, 2002). The National Assembly had to elect 310 members, in which 150 members were to be elected directly from each wing. However, 150 seats of the western wing were divided on the basis of the resident population of Punjab, NWFP (now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa), Balochistan, and Sindh. While, 10 seats were reserved for women, However, Legislative Assembly was dissolved in 1958 before the holding of national elections and later the commander-in-chief Ayub Khan, took power in his hands who ruled the country under martial law 1958-1962 without any constitutional apparatus. The dissolution of the Assembly has created serious difficulties in the country & has had a long-term impact on the functioning of its federal system. In 1962, however, a new constitution was established based on "basic democracies" while maintaining the unity (kundi& Jhangir, 2002).

c. Federalism under 1962 Constitution Ayub Khan was able to gain support for his continued rule from the army and civilian bureaucracy. Ayub Khan ignored the recommendations of the Constitution Committee established in 1960 (Syed, 1980). Ayub Khan Concern was to have a strong central government with an appeal to Pakistani nationalism. In 1962, Ayub Khan introduced a new constitution. The Constitution adopted the one-unit system, in which one council, the National Assembly, was supposed to serve for five years and was occupied by an equal number of members from east & west wings of Pakistan. In support of the military and civilian bureaucracy, the Constitution tends to balance the power towards the central government and the federal legislature, with provincial legislation virtually devoid of legislation (Kundi & Jhangir, 2002). After seven years the 1962 constitution was abrogated by another martial law. While thinking about the ability to get the parliament suspended so that the military junta can have a crucial role to play, Yahya Khan, who succeeded Ayub Khan by imposing martial law in 1969, and abolished one unit. He announced for elections. The results of free and fair

elections were surprising. The Awami League won two seats from eastern Pakistan, but the central government authorities in western Pakistan did not hold the National Assembly. The Central Government has decided to launch the Churchlite Restoration of Law and Order in the eastern wing. A situation originating primarily from Islamabad , that delay the formation of the central government of the Awami League. This resulted in violent conflicts, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Bengalis and the creation of 10 million refugees, culminating in the break-up of East Pakistan into Bangladesh. The idea of a federal system leaning towards one type of unique arrangement failed to unite federal units, while the majority rule was unambiguously suspicious (Kundi and Jahangir, 2002).

d. The 1973 constitution & Federalism in Pakistan The debacle of east Pakistan created a new thinking about federalism as Punjab had now became a dominate province 58 percent of the population. The smaller provinces were committed to constrain the majority of one province in the parliament. The elites of Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan pushed for some kind of majority constraining federalism. Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto, himself from Sindh, wanted a bicameral parliament consisting of an lower house and an upper house. The constitution recognized Provincial languages. However, only Sindhi was adopted provincial language in 1972 when Sindhi was given the status of official language. Urdu was, by defaulted recognized as a language of Sindh. Its negative fallout on mohajirs led to language riots, followed by decades of ethnic strife between the two communities (Adeney, 2007). Like the 1956 Constitution which was preceded by the Murree Accord between the Bengali and Punjabi groups, the 1973 Constitution was preceded by the agreement of 1972 between PPP and ANP-JUI combined. The 1973 Constitution ensure a National Assembly where majority belonged to Punjab and the Senate where all the four provinces enjoyed equal representation at 19 members each, with 8seats for FATA and for Islamabad. However, the impact of the enhanced representation of smaller provinces in the Senate has been offset by the asymmetrical policy scope of the two houses. The Senate has no control over money bills. The national budget could be sent for assent of the President after passage through National Assembly, even by passing the other house. The1973constitution, however, marked a break in this uninhibited flow of power toward certain interest groups, in that it created a representative parliamentary system offering certain significant concessions to provinces (language, cultural, principal decentralization). However, the preponderance of one province (Punjab) over the rest remained due to its overwhelming representative majority in the Lower House, among other provisions (such as federal and concurrent lists) Moreover, the provincial list continued to in the 1973 constitution, with a federal list of 59 subjects and ac on current list of 47 subjects. However, implementation of the pro-participatory clauses emerged as weak, within situations such as the Council of Common Interests and the National Finance

Commission—created to resolve inter-provincial disputes and provide a plat form for democratic discourse functioning without potency and eventually falling in to dormancy. Executive authority continued to retain primacy in most matters (Naseer, 2007). However, the 1973 Constitution predominantly followed the previous Constitutions 1956 and 1962 to the extent that in many instances the language used in many Articles was also retained (Khan, 2010). It retained a federal system, but unlike the previous Constitutions created a bicameral legislature. It had a upper house called Senate having 60 seats and a lower house called National Assembly which had 200 seats. The four units so the federation equally represented in the Senate whiles the National Assembly seats were divided on population basis. The1973Constitution, nevertheless, is distinguishable from the previous ones because it created the Senate having equal representation of all federating units so that smaller provinces like Balochistan are represented and the Senate plays a role in the system of checks and balances (Khan, 2010). The1973constitution created the form of federal structure of the state as mentioned earlier and had two Lists; one federal and the other concurrent. In the upper house or Senate, each federating unit contributed 14 members for four years term while half of the members retired after two years. The Federal List having 67 subjects was for the federal government while the Concurrent List provided opportunity for the provincial legislature to draft laws on the subjects. However, in the case of a dispute, according to theArticle143, the rights of the central government must be Supreme and prevail (Kundi and Jahangir, 2002). In order to strengthen the spirit of federation, a Council of Common Interest (CCI) was created. It was to be appointed by the President and must have Chief Ministers of the provinces with equal members from the Federal Government. The Council had exclusive jurisdiction over the ring of complaints regarding water supplies from the natural sources such as supply of water from rivers. In addition, the Council was supposed to formulate policies related railways, electricity, oil and gas, and industrial development (Khan, 2010).While the Constitution entered into force on 14 August 1973, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto delivered an important speech in which he said that the days of coups had ended and that violence in politics must stop (Khan, 2010). The constitutional period of Bhutto's government was also marked by a strong role on the part of the central government, leading to discontent in two provinces, the Iron Forest Party and Balochistan. Even before the 1973 Constitution was able to function, under the Interim Constitution of 1972, as interim President, Bhutto dissolved the coalition government in Baluchistan Atallah Mangal on 15 February 1973. The Governor of the National Action Party of the province and the deputy Bugti refused. Mr. Bugti submitted his resignation on November 11, 1973, but was asked to continue until January 3, 1974. In protest against the dissolution of the Balochistan government, the National Coalition - Joey resigned under Mufti Mahmud's resignation in the northwest. The incidents were later banned after provincial minister Hayat Khan Sherpao died in February 1975 and her leaders were arrested for conspiring against

the state. They remained behind bars and were released after the military coup in July 1977. The political turmoil in both governments was a blow to federalism. The voice of the opposition in the National Assembly was reduced within the National Assembly and acted like the Bonaparte State. The situation was a severe blow to federalism, and what was left was a huddle of the rule of martial law of the Zayat alHaq, which established the constitution for eight years (kundi & Jahangir, 2002).

2.1.4 Main attributes of federalism: Fundamentally, federalism is about the sharing of public power. There are different types of federal governments: a presidential government, such as the United States; Executive Federalism such as Australia and Canada; and Administrative Federalism such as Germany and Austria. Powers are assigned to the federal government and the local government either by provision of a Constitution or by judicial interpretation. In some countries, the federal government has broad power, as is in the case of the Russian Federation and Nigeria. While in others, such as in the United States, the federal government has a limited and defined role. The federal government is responsible for external relations, defense and macroeconomic policy. Local self-government bodies often independently manage municipal property; form, adopt and implement local budgets; introduce local taxes and dues; ensure the protection of public order; and solve other issues of local importance. In today’s world, of the 193 Member States of the United Nations, there are over 20 federal states across all continents, with a total of 2 billion people, about 40 per cent of the world’s population Under the federal system, it is more common that through the evolution of a federation there is a gradual movement of power from the component states to the centre than the other way around. The federal government acquires additional powers, sometimes to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The acquisition of new powers by a federal government may occur through formal constitutional amendment or simply through a broadening of the interpretation of a government's existing constitutional powers given by the courts (Bin, 2011).The division of power varies, however it is a settlement between center and the units but usually center has foreign and defense policies but the federating units can also have international role ( ). Many federations establish a separate capital territory where the federal capital is located (e.g. Canberra, Australia; New Delhi, India; Abuja, Nigeria; the District of Columbia, USA). The creation of a capital territory has several advantages. First, it asserts the neutrality of the federal capital in relation to the constituent units, thus helping, for example, to avoid allegations of favoritism in the distribution of federal funds. Second, it protects the personnel and institutions of the federal government from the potential risk of interference by any state government under whose jurisdiction they might otherwise fall. The establishment of a capital territory, distinct from the capital of any constituent unit, and geographically removed from the capital of the former unitary state, may also serve as a

clear signal of the government’s commitment to the (physical and geographical) decentralization of power. The degree of autonomy granted to capital territories varies. In the District of Columbia, all laws are directly made by the US Congress, while local administration is in the hands of an elected mayor and city council. In contrast, Delhi, the Indian National Capital Territory, has (since the 69th Amendment) a form of government closely resembling an Indian state, with an elected legislative assembly and chief minister exercising state-like powers (Bulmer, 2015). Federalism is a way of ensuring the wider distribution of public resources through revenue sharing and other forms of fiscal arrangements that guarantee an agreed share of resources to all areas of a country. Federalism may also encourage more geographically diverse economic and social development, in contrast to a unitary state where everything—money, power, culture—gravitates to the capital (Bulmer, 2015). Confederation in sharp contrast to federal form of government is a loosely knitted union of countries with their distinct and independent sovereignty. The confederation is made as an alliance or contract by the member countries that should have specific economic, political or strategic reasons behind, and the independence of the member countries is retained thereof. Thus, the confederation may be defined as an association of union of two or more independent countries that have given up or sacrificed a part of their respective national liberty in order to gain some specific objectives, and such objectives may include regional defense, transit trade or ideological identity. It is important to note that in terms of strength the confederation is more viable than a simple alliance among the states; however, it is much weaker than the federation. For instance, a federation does not allow the federating units to exercise their respective sovereignty. Nevertheless, confederation on the contrary does not require the member countries or confederated states to put an end to their sovereignty. That is because, as Hague argues, a confederation simply is ‘union of states’ instead of a ‘united states’, as a federation (Ahmed and Faiz, 2016). Bicameralism is the essential feature of federations. Bicameralism is most suited to the multi-ethnic states which have inherent potential to end up in chaos in absence of satisfactory division of powers. Bicameralism ensures continuity of legislation, second deliberation, impartial role in legislation and equal representation of all diverse federating units, balance of political power and accountability. Bicameralism is also best choice for transitioning democracies. In Pakistan, all constitutions after partition maintained unicameralism until separation of East Pakistan. Only after Dhaka debacle it was realized that domination of one federating unit, Punjab, and grievances of smaller ones should be patterned by some other way. It was realized in through bicameralism in the constitution of 1973. Senate is the upper body of parliament with equal representation from all federating units making sure that smaller provinces are characterized not by their numerical strength. Senate should guarantee impartiality and second deliberation to the matters considered at National Assembly overshadowed by majority population provinces. Provincial autonomy was the long demanded right of provinces which was brought about through 18th amendment to the Constitution. This amendment gave a new and dynamic role to the

Senate. Multi-ethnic society like Pakistan needs equality at some elevated level where the small federating units can have feeling of equality and utmost power. Bicameralism provides a framework of representation of provinces at two levels (Javaid and Ahmed, 2017). Most federal systems allow the federal government to intervene in the internal administration of the constituent states or provinces in order to ensure democratic stability or to uphold human rights, the rule of law and basic standards of good governance. The Constitution of India, for example, declares that, ‘It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution’ (article 355); if a state fails to fulfill this duty, the president may make a proclamation to the effect that legislative and executive powers in the state are transferred on a temporary basis to the national parliament and to the national government, respectively (article 356). There are two reasons for provisions of this type: (a) the failure of any part of a federation to maintain an acceptable democratic standard has consequences for the well-being of the whole federation (it would be untenable, for example, for a Federalism state governed by a dictator to participate fully as a member of an otherwise democratic federation); and (b) the citizens of each constituent unit have certain fundamental substantive and due-process rights that it is the duty of the federal government to uphold, and the federal government could not uphold these rights without having the power to intervene. However, a federal power to intervene in the internal politics and administration of constituent units could be abused in order to undermine the federal distribution of power. The governments of constituent units would have real little autonomy if they were in peril of being dissolved or being stripped of their powers, at any time, for any reason; by an arbitrary act of the federal govern Confederation (Bulmer, 2015).

2.2 Conceptual Framework:

Chapter 3 Research Methodology 3.1 Approach This research will include only qualitative data so according to the fact of literature Review the researcher will use post positivist approach.

3.2 Method/Tool As this research include only secondary data so the researcher will use Literature Review by reading different Books, Articles, Research papers, Government Documents, Reports, Newspapers etc.

3.3 Data Type: In this research the researcher will highlight the issue by using secondary data.

3.4 Data Analysis In this research the data will analyze by using thematic analysis.

Chapter 4 Organization of the Study Abstract Acknowledgements Table of contents Abbreviations

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Background Statement of the problem Objectives of the Study Significance of the Study Research Questions

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Existing Research 2.1.1 Federalism 2.1.2 History 2.1.3 Division of power 2.1.4 Capital territories 2.1.5 Distribution of public resources 2.1.6 Confederations 2.1.7 Bicameralism 2.1.8 Democracy 2.2 Conceptual Framework

Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Approach 3.2 Data collection Methods 3.3 Tool of Data Analysis

Chapter 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Conclusions 4.2 Recommendations References

REFERENCES