7 ` t HE 18th Amendment has, quite unfortunately, become the elephant in the room in policy circles just because .m our political leaders refuse to engage in debate over the issues that divide them. Recently, the PML-N and PPP sparred extensively over the matter after some remarks from N-League leaders were interpreted by the PPP as being suggestive of a fresh conspiracy to roll back the amendment. Criticism of the 18th Amendment has picked up in recent years as the federal resource pie has shrunk in size, and is seen to have come mainly from `security` circles and parties that have sought to curry favour with them. As the PML-N`s star shines bright these days, it was not really surprising, then, that comments on the 18th Amendment from its leaders raised hackles in the PPP, which has jealously defended it as one of its key legislative achievements. However, while the PML-N has since `clarified` that it does not intend to do away with the 18th Amendment, just to see it implemented it in its original spirit which, it argues, entails a further devolution of power to the local government level the PPP has continued to insist this is another disguised attempt at reversing the law and revoking provincial autonomy.

Though the PTI and PML-N may not see it now, the PPP`s stout defence of the 18th Amendment has done a great service to both Pakistani democracy as well as other parties. At the same time, however, political discussions and debates over how democratic power may be further devolved to the grassroots level should be welcomed and not resisted. In this, the PPP must make itself available to hearing and debating the concerns of its rival parties, instead of simply shutting them all down as some `conspiracy`.

Democracy, after all, flows from an empowered citizenry; therefore, any proposal that seeks to increase the public`s participation in the state`s decision-making processes should be encouraged. One way to gain greater control over the debate on the 18th Amendment may be to take the lead in discussions and steer them towards a direction that is acceptable to all. Ultimately, it is parliament that must decide the amendment`s fate. It would be far better if this were to be done through consensus and debate rather than by railroading changes through the legislature without fully understanding their long-term implications.