The decision to increase the tenure of the chiefs of all three branches of the Pakistan military from three to five years has created new schisms in a political environment that is already deeply divisive.
The criticism from the PTI seems to be centred around the idea that the bill has been passed in a concentrated effort to keep the incumbent chiefs of the forces in power for longer than their tenures. It is true that if President Zardari lends his signature to the bills, the retirement dates of the three chiefs will be extended. General Asim Munir, who is currently set to retire in November 2025, will have his tenure extended to November 2027. Admiral Naveed Ashraf will have his retirement extended from October 2026 to October 2028. It is unclear how this will affect Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmad, who is more than halfway into what is already a one year extension.
It does not help that the government bludgeoned through six different bills through parliament last night on a supplementary agenda, once again not allowing the opposition ample time to do its job.
But the bills are not limited to the current chiefs of the armed forces. One must remember that a five year service chief tenure is nothing new for Pakistanis, especially not when it comes to the army. Of the past three army chiefs, two have been given an extra tenure and served six years in the post instead of three. An extension was also hotly anticipated when General Raheel Sharif was retiring. Each time, the reasoning of the government, no matter which political party was in power, has been continuity. With a five year tenure, the question of the need for an extension is not going to be as pervasive, and the person serving as chief will have more time to implement their vision. This is particularly poignant when it comes to the Special Investment Facilitation Council, where the current COAS has played a vital and very public role. In the future as well, it might help investors feel a sense of stability and security to know that whoever the army chief is, they will be on the council for an extended duration even if the prime minister changes. It is also worth noting that there has been a recent surge in terrorism, and in the past as well governments have felt it necessary to give extensions to chiefs during such troubling times.
The amended rules may come with their benefits. It is now on the government to bridge the trust deficit that has built between them, the opposition, and the public. For that, they will need to display good faith to convince all parties of their intentions. The true essence of these changes should be continuity and stability. The government should ensure this is felt by the people they govern.
