Pakistan's military influence intensifies with expanded powers for the army chief and controversial legal amendments
The Pakistani government has taken a controversial step by granting the country's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, unprecedented powers and lifelong immunity from arrest and prosecution. This move has sparked concerns among critics who argue that it paves the way for autocratic rule. The 27th constitutional amendment, signed into law on Thursday, not only bestows new authority upon Munir but also significantly alters the functioning of the nation's top courts.
Proponents of the changes claim that they introduce clarity and administrative structure to the armed forces, potentially alleviating court backlogs. However, this perspective is challenged by those who view it as a power grab by the military. Pakistan's military has historically played a pivotal role in the country's politics, sometimes seizing control through coups and other times operating behind the scenes. The country has experienced a cyclical pattern of civilian autonomy and military dominance, with analysts describing this dynamic as hybrid rule.
The recent amendment is seen by some as a clear indication that the balance of power is shifting in favor of the military. Michael Kugelman, director of the Wilson Center's South Asia Institute, suggests that Pakistan is transitioning from a hybrid system to a post-hybrid system, where the civil-military imbalance is as skewed as it could be.
As a result of the amendment, Munir, who has held the position of army chief since November 2022, will now oversee Pakistan's navy and air force. His field marshal title and uniform are bestowed for life, and he will be assigned 'responsibilities and duties' even after retirement, determined by the president with the advice of the prime minister. This arrangement is expected to ensure his prominent role in public life throughout his lifetime.
Supporters of the bill argue that it clarifies the military command structure in Pakistan. The government-operated news agency, the Associated Press of Pakistan, quoted Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as stating that the changes are part of a broader reform agenda aimed at aligning Pakistan's defense with modern warfare requirements.
However, critics like Munizae Jahangir, a journalist and co-chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, argue that the amendment tilts the power dynamic further towards the military, empowering them at a time when they should be reined in. Jahangir highlights the judiciary as a second controversial area of change, where the creation of a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) will determine constitutional questions, with its judges appointed by the president.
This development has raised concerns about the influence of the executive on the judiciary, as well as the potential impact on the right to a fair trial. Arifa Noor, a journalist and commentator, notes that the judiciary is now perceived as subservient to the executive, with limited independent operational space.
Before the amendment, the Supreme Court handled constitutional cases, which some argued contributed to a backlog of criminal and civil cases. The separation of these cases has been proposed as a solution to streamline the court process. However, this argument is not universally accepted, with some lawyers, like Salahuddin Ahmed, questioning its sincerity, as the majority of pending cases in Pakistan are not in the Supreme Court.
The amendment's impact on the judiciary has been further exacerbated by the resignations of two Supreme Court justices in the hours following its enactment. Justice Athar Minallah stated that the constitution he swore to uphold and defend was no more, while Justice Mansoor Ali Shah described the 27th amendment as tearing the Supreme Court apart. Khawaja Asif, the defense minister, attributed the resignations to the judges' awakening conscience due to the curbing of their monopoly on the Supreme Court and the Parliament's assertion of the Constitution's supremacy.
The amendment also grants the government the authority to transfer judges to different courts without their consent, with the potential for invalid reasons leading to retirement. Proponents argue that this ensures court staffing across the country, but concerns arise regarding its potential use as a threat. Salahuddin Ahmed warns that this change could disrupt the balance in Pakistan, as the judiciary has historically collaborated with dictators while also exerting influence on the executive.
Michael Kugelman and Arifa Noor share similar concerns, emphasizing the potential consequences of bottled-up grievances on social stability and the slide towards authoritarianism. The recent amendment, they argue, builds upon the 26th amendment, which granted lawmakers the power to select Pakistan's top judge, with speculation already emerging about a potential 28th amendment, further tilting the balance of power in favor of the establishment.
