Welcome To DWT Listing Theme
Senior Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F) leader and seasoned parliamentarian, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, emphasized that the constitutional process for the removal or change of the President of Pakistan is a hallmark of democratic governance. His remarks come at a time when Pakistan’s political landscape is once again at a crossroads, with discussions intensifying around the role of the presidency, the performance of constitutional offices, and the overall health of democracy in the country.
Maulana Haideri, known for his vocal stance on parliamentary supremacy and constitutionalism, highlighted that the office of the President is not above the Constitution, and that any change made through proper legal and parliamentary mechanisms must be seen as part of a democratic evolution, not a political vendetta.
Pakistan, under its 1973 Constitution, follows a parliamentary system of governance, where the Prime Minister holds executive powers, while the President serves as a ceremonial head of state with specific constitutional responsibilities. These include summoning and dissolving the assemblies (on advice), giving assent to bills, and representing the unity of the federation.
However, there have been occasions in Pakistan’s political history where presidents have wielded outsized influence, especially during military regimes or politically charged transitions. As a result, the question of accountability and the constitutional conduct of the President remains a pertinent one.
Maulana Haideri’s comments appear to reference recent controversies surrounding former President Dr. Arif Alvi, whose term ended amid debates over his refusal to assent to certain parliamentary bills. Critics accused him of violating constitutional norms by not fulfilling his ceremonial duty to approve legislation passed by both houses of Parliament.
While no formal impeachment proceedings were initiated, political commentators and opposition leaders—including Haideri—openly questioned the legitimacy of his actions and called for adherence to Article 47 of the Constitution, which lays out the process for removing a president on grounds of physical or mental incapacity or serious misconduct.
In this context, Maulana Haideri’s assertion is twofold:
Affirmation of the rule of law—that no office, including the presidency, is immune to constitutional checks.
Defense of democratic norms—that removing a president, if done through the prescribed legal channels, strengthens rather than undermines democracy.
The Constitution of Pakistan provides a clear mechanism for presidential accountability. Under Article 47, either house of Parliament can move a resolution to impeach the President, provided it is backed by a two-thirds majority. This provision ensures that while the President enjoys constitutional protection, he or she is not beyond reproach.
Maulana Haideri’s comments reflect a larger push among pro-democracy politicians to restore institutional balance in the country. He argued that making use of constitutional mechanisms—rather than backdoor dealings or street protests—is the only way to ensure political stability and uphold public trust in democratic institutions.
The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazlur Rehman group), of which Haideri is a key figure, has traditionally maintained a strong stance in favor of parliamentary supremacy, independence of the judiciary, and civilian control of state institutions. While the party’s rhetoric is rooted in religious values, its leadership, particularly Maulana Haideri, often speaks in favor of democratic reforms, free and fair elections, and respect for constitutional processes.
By calling the presidential transition a “democratic process,” Haideri is reinforcing the idea that institutions must operate within their constitutional limits and that change is not only inevitable in a democracy—it is necessary when public trust erodes.
Pakistan’s democratic trajectory has often been interrupted by authoritarian interludes, military coups, and judicial interventions. In such a context, even seemingly routine constitutional events—like the change of a president—carry symbolic weight.
Haideri’s remarks serve as a reminder that the strength of democracy lies in its institutions, not personalities. By advocating for constitutional procedure rather than political pressure or coercion, he has sent a message that mature democracies handle leadership transitions through law, not confrontation.
Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri’s statement underscores a foundational truth of democratic governance: No office-bearer is above the Constitution, and no change in leadership is undemocratic if it follows constitutional norms. At a time when Pakistan is struggling with political polarization, economic instability, and institutional mistrust, such affirmations of democratic process are both timely and necessary.
Whether the statement results in actionable steps or simply contributes to the national conversation, it certainly invites all political stakeholders to re-commit to the rule of law, parliamentary accountability, and democratic continuity.
Reference: آئینی طریقے سے صدر پاکستان تبدیل ہونا جمہوری عمل ہے: مولانا عبدالغفور حیدری
