Pakistan’s 27th Amendment Sparks Alarm, Critics Say Army Chief Munir Gaining Unchecked Political Power

New Delhi: Pakistan is witnessing a heated debate on the 27th Constitutional Amendment that could reshape power structures. The proposal involves changes to Article 243, affecting command and control of the armed forces. It also includes adjustments in how the judiciary and provincial resources are managed. Critics fear this could shift authority away from civilians to military leadership. Supporters claim the move will strengthen national security. However, many believe the timing reflects internal political instability. The issue has stirred nationwide discussion and tension.

Why Are Experts Raising Concerns?

Defense analyst Ayesha Siddiqa argues that Army Chief Asim Munir is seeking expanded authority through this amendment. She states that past military leaderships tried similar moves but failed. According to her, Munir now finds major political parties aligned with him. This alignment increases the chances of the amendment passing. Siddiqa warns that such expansion could limit democratic oversight. The debate has revived fears of historical military dominance. Many now question whether Pakistan’s democratic system is becoming symbolic.

What Happened After the 18th Amendment?

The 18th Amendment once reduced the military’s centralized hold by empowering provinces. Former Army Chief Bajwa publicly expressed discomfort with it, comparing it to policies that divided Pakistan in 1971. Political groups now worry the 27th Amendment may reverse decentralization. Critics believe power could shift back to federal and military control. Pashtun leader Mohsin Dawar has called it a threat to political balance. Activists argue it could harm provincial rights. The move is seen as erasing past democratic progress.

How Could The Military Gain More Control?

Reports suggest the amendment may expand military supervision over civil administration. It may also provide structured influence in judicial decisions. Observers worry this would discourage independent legal rulings. Additionally, military involvement could grow in resource distribution debates. Political leaders fear erosion of civilian authority. Many warn that constitutional balance could tilt permanently. This has raised urgent calls for parliamentary transparency.

Is The President’s Role Changing Too?

Some insiders believe the amendment could increase presidential powers. This shift could indirectly support military influence, depending on leadership alignment. Pakistan’s hybrid governance may tilt further toward centralized control. Critics fear civilian decision-making could weaken even more. The debate signals a deeper struggle over state identity. Many worry it reflects long-standing institutional mistrust. The country once again confronts old governance dilemmas.

What About Command Structure Reforms?

Reports also mention a proposal to create a Chief of Defense Staff (CDS) role. This would place all armed service chiefs under a central figure. Some say this could improve coordination during national security challenges. Others warn it consolidates power dangerously. The role could also shift public accountability away from elected leaders. The army’s strategic dominance could grow. The debate centers on whether efficiency outweighs democratic checks.

Where Could This Lead Pakistan?

If passed, the amendment may redefine Pakistan’s political future. Critics fear a return to soft military rule. Supporters claim it ensures stability and unity. The conflict reflects decades of unresolved civil-military imbalance. The nation stands at a sensitive turning point. Observers say the next steps will shape Pakistan’s governance for years. Democracy, authority, and public trust are all on the line.