IN a hurriedly adopted bill, the Pakistani parliament has extended the tenure of services chiefs from three to five years. Retirement age bar of 64 years (for generals, air chief marshals and admirals) won’t apply to these three functionaries; extensions, re-appointments for these posts (if any) will also be for five years. The move has sparked quite a bit of debate and the political parties in the opposition have raised serious objections to the bill. The opposition PTI took a strong exception to the passage of the bills in the NA and continued chanting slogans throughout the session. PTI members argued that the government hastily approved key constitutional amendments without allowing for proper debate, calling the move detrimental to an already fragile democracy in Pakistan. The move was also condemned by other political parties, including the Jamaat-i-Islami.
In a post on X, JI Senator Mushtaq Ahmad Khan said, “The path for legal martial law has been paved in Pakistan”. Earlier, the controversial 26th Constitutional Amendment stripped the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers, set the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered the Prime Minister to appoint the next CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. Before discussing the implications of this move, let us briefly examine the tenures of services chiefs in various countries. In the United Kingdom, the tenure of service chiefs varies depending on the branch of the military. Generally, the tenure for the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and other senior military positions is around 3 to 4 years. This allows for a balance between providing enough time to implement long-term strategies and ensuring regular opportunities for new leadership.
In the United States, the tenure for service chiefs, such as the Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, is typically 4 years. In India, the tenure of service chiefs varies by branch of the military. Generally, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) and Chief of Air Staff (CAS) serve for a period of 3 years, with the possibility of extension up to a maximum of 4 years in some cases. According to the proponents of this change, extending the tenure of Pakistan’s services chiefs from 3 to 5 years has several advantages.
They argue that longer tenures allow for more consistent and stable military leadership, which is crucial for implementing long-term strategies and policies. The logic being forwarded by the supporters of the change is that with a longer tenure, service chiefs have more time to see their initiatives through to completion without the disruptions caused by frequent leadership variations.
Another advantage floated is that extended tenures can enhance national security efforts by providing a steady hand at the helm, ensuring that ongoing operations and strategies are not derailed by command changes. The extension is seen as a move to strengthen military institutions by providing them with more time to develop and execute comprehensive plans especially to combat both external and internal threats. The scourge of terrorism has become the bane of the entire globe but Pakistan is among the hardest hit countries. The decision has wide support across the political parties in government, which purportedly adds to its legitimacy and reinforces the idea that it is a move for institutional benefit rather than individual gain. There are however, detractors of the current forces yielding their influence in the corridors of power to be illegitimate as the challengers question the veracity of the February 8, 2024 electoral process.
Unsurprisingly, numerous critics have pointed out a number of negative implications of the extension of the services chiefs from three to five years. Many of these political pundits comprise Armed Forces veterans and observers of security and strategic challenges. They opine that extending the tenure could lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals which might undermine the democratic process and civilian control over the military. They also believe that longer tenures will possibly reduce the accountability of services chiefs, as they would have more time to entrench their positions and influence. The move has been seen as politically motivated, potentially causing further tensions between the government and opposition parties.
There is a strong possibility that the new bill could affect the morale of other officers who may feel that their chances of promotion are limited due to the extended tenures of the top brass and the aspirants to the top slot to lead the services, will now retire before seeing the fruition of their dreams. Criticizers reject the concept of longer tenures bringing stability and are convinced that it reduces flexibility and the ability to bring in fresh perspectives. Some international analysts have also viewed the move negatively. Michael Kugelman, Director of the South Asia Institute at Washington’s Wilson Centre, commented on “X”, formerly known as Twitter: “The most powerful post in Pakistan is poised to become even more powerful. When a legislature is reduced to a rubber stamp, democracy is never a winner.”
Readers may recall that last month, more than 60 members of U.S. Congress wrote to President Joe Biden, urging his intervention declaring that in February, 2024, the Pakistani parliamentary elections saw a historic level of irregularities, including widespread electoral fraud, state-led efforts to disenfranchise voters, and the arrest and detention of political leaders, journalists and activists.
The letter by the US lawmakers was denounced by the Pakistan government, who deemed the letter to be an intrusion into the internal affairs of Pakistan. Islamabad had strongly objected to the resolution, saying it “stems from an incomplete understanding of the political situation and electoral process” in the South Asian nation.
Yet the extension granted to the services chiefs, more specifically the Army Chief appears to be a vindication of the observation by the US lawmakers labelling Pakistan’s governance as ‘military rule with civilian facade’ but readers should decide for themselves, whether the advantages outweigh the potential drawbacks.
—The writer, Retired Group Captain of PAF, is author of several books on China.
(sultanm.hali@gmail.com)
