The passage of six significant amendment bills on Monday in Pakistan’s National Assembly and Senate is being lauded as a major victory for the coalition government. These amendments, aimed at adjusting existing laws, may resolve anticipated or speculative opposition challenges that could hinder the continuity of government policies. Yet, this “victory” comes with an underlying tension, as the government’s lack of transparency in drafting and presenting these bills has stirred unrest and distrust, both within the opposition ranks and among the public. A critical change includes amendments to the laws governing the Army, Air Force, and Navy, extending the terms of all three armed forces’ chiefs from three to five years. This amendment ensures that the current Army Chief, General Asim Munir, will retain his post until 2028, eliminating the previous custom of extending terms on a discretionary basis.
Now, under a structured, automatic system, chiefs across all forces will serve fixed five-year terms, adding a layer of predictability to the top leadership in Pakistan’s military. Equally substantial is the amendment increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from 17 to 34. Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar presented this as a necessary measure to address the backlog of pending cases and establish a dedicated constitutional court. However, the opposition’s reaction was less than cooperative. When the amendments were introduced, opposition members protested loudly but offered no counter-proposals. In a dramatic display, they tore up bill copies and raised slogans, leading to a near-physical confrontation with government members, requiring the intervention of security to restore order.
Observers have pointed out an interesting dynamic: the opposition’s uproar was notably directed at judicial and other civil amendments, while those relating to the military’s chief appointment remained largely unchallenged. Outside Parliament, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam commented that extending the Army Chief’s tenure was an administrative issue and had precedents. Meanwhile, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chair Barrister Gohar decried the amendments as an effort to replace democracy with monarchy, while Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif and Prime Minister’s adviser Rana Sanaullah maintained that these amendments would benefit democracy. According to these ministers, no individual agenda was tied to the judiciary amendments, and they argued that extending the Army Chief’s tenure was both harmless and pragmatic.
However, the government’s secrecy surrounding these bills has raised eyebrows. The lack of public engagement and opposition consultation has prompted the opposition to hint at challenging these amendments in court. The pressing question remains: why the need for such excessive secrecy? Across the globe, legislative amendments are often made public to foster a positive consensus, including opposition consultation. Rushing these bills through Parliament without transparency may yield short-term gains, but it erodes democratic foundations, contributing to political instability, mistrust, and public skepticism. For a government that aspires to strengthen democracy, adopting an inclusive approach to legislative changes would have been a wiser path. When amendments are introduced abruptly and shielded from public scrutiny, they risk sowing seeds of division and mistrust, ultimately undermining the very democratic values they claim to uphold.
