Daily Times

The decision has finally been made. General Qamar Jawad Bajwa is the new army chief starting Tuesday. Amidst a selection process that received much media attention and with the spin and scintillation that naturally accompanies such an affair, General Bajwa’s smooth appointment would further anchor Pakistan’s democratic system and set a much needed precedent. This has been in no small amount achieved by General Raheel Sharif’s commitment to professionalism and decisiveness on matters of duty. When speculations of his extension were ripe in the media, he laid them to rest by stating that he would not seek one. And as his tenure dew to a close, he started his farewell visits, thereby reaffirming his commitment to retire at the proper time. General Sharif has raised the public expectation of the office of the chief of army staff, and it is this legacy that General Bajwa would have to follow.

The position of the chief of army staff is a difficult one because of the trajectory of Pakistan’s institutional development following independence. It is no secret that Pakistan army has a great deal of influence in Pakistan, and this has for the most part resulted in a certain degree of tension between it and elected institutions. The situation is further complicated by the perception of the military in the public sphere, in which the media has glamourised the post of the chief of army staff to a great extent, and which in turn has led to a polarised view of the role of the army chief in matters of public affairs. Whereas a segment of the Pakistani population wants civilian supremacy and for the army to remain within its constitutional limits, others display their distrust for the civilian government by calling for the army to be the final arbiters. On certain occasions even leaders of political parties have called on the army chief to intervene. All of this puts a great deal of pressure on the army chief as at one end he has to abide by his constitutional role while at the other constant expectation by a certain segment of the public pressurises against doing so. However, General Sharif’s example should set a precedent in this regard as he did not pay heed to any voices calling for an extraconstitutional move and did not involve himself in any political matter. It is precisely for this reason that General Sharif’s achievements as an army chief are not marred by political controversies and he is leaving the office as a hero.

While in matters of politics the role of the army chief is difficult yet clear, in matters of policy it is somewhat ambivalent. This is because at one end the military is, without a doubt, the most well equipped organisation to provide input to the civilian government on matters relating to defence and security. And the expert advice of the military is essential for the formulation of an effective national security policy. Very few would argue against this. However, in a substantive democracy, while military’s input is given a great deal of weightage, the power of the ultimate decision lies in the hands of the civilian government, and the military, being an essential organ of the state, has to follow that policy. The army, if it considers a certain policy of the civilian government would not produce the intended results, may persuade it using its expert knowledge, but nothing beyond that.

General Bajwa occupies office at a difficult time, with the consolidation phase of Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the return of temporarily displaced persons underway, and with internal and external security threats needing to be addressed. It is hoped that General Bajwa fulfils his duties in the same manner that General Sharif did, and effectively tackles all of these issues while further strengthening the democratic foundations of Pakistan. *