One argument put forward by the sceptics is that the administrative and

financial autonomy granted to the provinces under the 18th Amendment has
paved the way for a confederal structure, thus weakening the authority of the
federal government. The criticism is baseless. There may be some issues
related to security and finances but greater autonomy strengthens the state
rather than weakening it.
Critics of the 18th Amendment claim that the transfer of a large part of fiscal
resources to the provinces limits the financial space for the federal
government which is responsible for defence expenditure and debt servicing
that constitute the biggest chunk of the budget. But many economists refute
the argument saying that the federal government is still left with a surplus
after paying for defence and debt servicing to meet other expenses. True, the
economy is in bad shape but it is not because of the 18th Amendment. The
economy is critical to national security but equally important is the
continuation of the democratic process, however flawed.

There are indeed some flaws left in the amendment that are dark patches in
the Constitution. While ensuring the supremacy of parliament by removing
dictatorial footprints from the Constitution it retained some notorious clauses
inducted by Gen Zia, seemingly under pressure from the right-wing parties.

Also some retrogressive and undemocratic clauses were introduced, including

barring non-Muslims from holding the office of president. So, discrimination
against religious minorities has been strengthened under the 18th
Amendment. But the political parties shouting from the rooftops in defence of
the 18th Amendment would not mention these flaws.