"Just as the Judiciary has made a procedure within itself over the years, in the same way, the Army as an institution should formulate a procedure for the appointment of its Army Chief at the internal level."
Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif has actually exposed the potential anxiety within the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) government by suggesting that it is hesitant and anxious to exercise the constitutional authority to appoint a new army chief. This is because the current Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa is retiring in November 2022. Prominent political analyst Saeed Shafqat has commented that 'Khawaja Asif's recent conversation is a clear indication of the government's reluctance to fulfill its constitutional duty.'
According to observers, there are two reasons for this: The government is not clear about the current political situation and the level of possible conflict within the Pakistan Army General Staff over the appointment of a new Chief of Army Staff. The second reason is that the Dhan-Pan coalition government does not want to embroil itself in a conflict that is likely to emerge after the appointment of new army chief in November this year.
From April 2022, reports of 'concern' about the country's political situation within the army started circulating on the part of some circles in Islamabad.
This was the time when Imran Khan was deprived of the post of Prime Minister through a no-confidence motion. These reports also gained strength when the news came out in the local media that the current Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa was severely beaten by his own officers while describing the circumstances of the expulsion of Imran Khan through a motion of no confidence in the National Assembly. Questions have been encountered.
After that, it started raining answers and answers like statements from the leadership of PTI about the people in the current government and the appointment of the new army chief. From this situation, it was inferred that when the government appoints a new army chief, it is unlikely to lead to political upheaval. On condition of anonymity, a senior leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) said that 'the government wants to save itself from these conflicts, we have borne the burden of our share.'
Perhaps the current government is so engrossed in this issue that it has kept itself aloof from the entire process. The first bitter pill was swallowed by the coalition government when former President Asif Ali Zardari made a statement that Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed had been 'sidelined' within the army.
General Faiz Hameed has been considered a possible candidate for the new army chief. The Department of Army Public Relations (ISPR) denied the former president's statement saying that the said officer was not sidelined.
These are the same officers who were accused by former Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif of being the 'mastermind of rigging' in the 2018 general elections. In this context, Asif Zardari's statement about General Faiz Hameed was not felt well in military circles.
Everyone could clearly see the result. Lt. Gen. Faiz Hameed was entrusted with the responsibility of leading the Pakistani delegation in talks with the TTP in Kabul. Later, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif personally invited him to the Prime Minister's House where he informed the Prime Minister about the results of the talks.
Analysts and observers have drawn two conflicting conclusions from these events. A group of analysts believes that the Army appears powerless to curb the widespread speculation in the Pakistani media about the appointment of its new chief.
The Army has expressed its displeasure over the open debate and comments on the appointment of the Army Chief. The frenzied discussions about the appointment of a new army chief come at a time when the army and its leadership are facing severe criticism over allegations of a 'regime change' plot by the former ruling party PTI. Is.
Pakistan Muslim League (N) and PTI, the two top political parties, have been critical of the army and its leadership at various times. Since the resignation of Nawaz Sharif in July 2017 and Imran Khan in April 2022, both parties, Pakistan Muslim League (N) and PTI have alleged that certain generals played a role in bringing down their governments.
Both parties took out their supporters and activists on protest campaigns and refused to accept the government of their political opponents. Political commentators believe that such criticism has created a political challenge for the military and its leadership to continue to dominate the political system.
Prominent journalist Zaigham Khan says that 'such a campaign of criticism creates an identity problem for the army and its leadership in a society where the army is generally considered to be the protector of the nation.' On the other hand, there are commentators who believe that the political system is still completely under the influence of the establishment.
This is indicated by the fact that the Pakistan Muslim League (N) government seems ready to abandon the constitutional authority to appoint a new army chief. Giving another argument, Saeed Shafqat, a prominent expert on civil-military relations, is of the opinion that 'the army mostly takes its power from within the system or gets the support of powerful countries or friendly nations and international recognition.'
According to Saeed Shafqat, it is neither the case that the army is getting stronger nor is it the case that the army is getting weaker. This matter is more complicated than it is supposed to be. They are more focused on the external aspect of security and statecraft. For example, they have to deal with the situation in Afghanistan, the Iranian issue, the security needs of Saudi Arabia, and the responsibilities related to Central Asia.
It is not without reason that one day they go to China and the next day they are in Saudi Arabia. There are some reasons behind this. According to some observers, after the departure of former military president Pervez Musharraf, the top leadership of the military and intelligence agencies demonstrated their ability to control the state machinery.
This political power affects events at the local and national levels in the political system that is needed to provide legal protection to political elites in a severely underpowered criminal justice system. Experts believe that the military's role in global and regional power games, such as the Cold War and the War on Terror, gives it global legitimacy.
If any foreign personality comes to Islamabad, he must meet the Army Chief at General Headquarters Rawalpindi. Army chiefs who came after Musharraf's tenure have frequently visited Washington DC, London, Brussels, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Beijing, and other countries. Constitutionally, the Chief of Army Staff has no role in the country's diplomacy.
Experts point out that after the departure of the United States from Afghanistan, the importance of the Pakistani army in regional security management has increased many times, so its international legitimacy or acceptance has increased, which is highlighted by Pakistani defense experts with great enthusiasm.
For example, both Russia and Iran have been talking to the Pakistani military leadership about the Islamic State and other militant groups in Afghanistan. They are negotiating with the Afghan Taliban for the same purpose.
But at the moment we are seeing a debate in the public about what should be the role of the army in society. Leaders of both major parties, PML-N and PTI, are involved in this discussion or process. Both are trying to use the political potential of the army in their favor for their own point of view and political interests.
The behavior of each during this process is supporting or confirming that the evil forces and the institutions under their command have a unique political role or influence that both large and popular parties or other parties are deprived of.
It appears that leaders of political parties have observed or experienced the unique political role and capacity of the military. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif while addressing businessmen and entrepreneurs in Karachi has said that "If we had received even 30% of the help that was given to Imran Khan by the establishment, then Pakistan would have developed very fast."
This statement also contains an open acknowledgment of the fact that the armed forces have a special capability that the federal government does not possess. Otherwise, they wouldn't have said the things they have done in recent weeks and months.
Addressing a press conference in Peshawar on the day after the Long March in Islamabad, Imran Khan said that the current political situation is also a test for the establishment because the country is sinking, and if they remain neutral, they will also suffer. will be responsible for.
They seem to think that the military plays a decisive role in bringing and taking down governments. For example, Imran Khan's reaction was very clear when DG ISPR addressed a press conference in March this year and said that the Army is neutral.
It was then that a no-confidence vote was going to be held in Parliament and the ruling PTI was rapidly weakening. Imran Khan has learned the lesson that if the army chief decides to remain neutral, the prime minister may lose his majority.
He learned this lesson before losing his government. If the political leaders are so helpless in this system or they consider themselves so helpless, then what lessons have the ruling classes and people of Pakistan learned from this situation? It appears that the army is in a position to create a crisis even if it is sidelined.
Observers believe that political parties have become accustomed to the support of powerful constituencies. It does not matter whether they are in government or opposition. The mystery is that, on the one hand, most political analysts are of the opinion that the successive anti-army campaigns of former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan in the last few years have greatly weakened the political capacity and position of the army in the society. have done.
According to the various experts interviewed for this report, the anti-military campaign by both political parties has created a serious political challenge to the military's dominance in the political system, but this situation is not based on the military over the power system. It is not correct to see it as a consequence of the weakening of the grip.
According to Saeed Shafqat, 'internally they (the army and its leadership) are less focused and their attitude towards it is neglectful. The anti-army campaign is dangerous, but it is wrong to think that it will weaken the authority of the army. On the other hand, Zaigham Khan is firm on his position that the military leadership has not given any indication in recent times that they will distance themselves from engaging in political agenda.
He says that he considers himself the protector of the nation and will continue to do so strictly because he believes that the military has a fundamental role in the process of distribution of resources in a society that is in the interest of his institution. This political role is an ongoing project and the anti-army campaign will not affect that role.
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
