A political earthquake is rattling Pakistan as a new constitutional amendment hands Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir unprecedented authority, lifetime immunity and a permanent role in national leadership, sparking nationwide alarm over a historic tilt toward military dominance.
Pakistan’s parliament has passed the 27th constitutional amendment, granting Munir new powers that critics say threaten to dismantle the country’s fragile civil-military balance. The amendment, now signed into law, reshapes military authority, restructures the judiciary and deepens concerns about an accelerating slide toward authoritarianism. Supporters of the bill claim it modernises Pakistan’s defence architecture and eliminates administrative confusion, but others believe it cements control in the hands of the armed forces.
Pakistan’s military has always been influential in national politics, shaping foreign policy, domestic security and governance. The country’s history features cycles of military rule under figures like General Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf. Analysts have typically described Pakistan’s political structure as hybrid rule, where elected governments operate but military influence remains dominant. According to experts, this amendment signals an end to hybrid governance and the beginning of a new phase defined by overwhelming military supremacy.
Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Center says the amendment is “the strongest indication yet” that the military now holds unrivaled authority. He argues that “the civil-military imbalance is about as imbalanced as it could possibly be.” Munir, who has served as army chief since November 2022, will now also oversee Pakistan’s navy and air force. His field marshal rank is permanent, and he will retain influence after retirement through “responsibilities and duties” assigned by the president on the advice of the prime minister. Analysts believe this guarantees Munir a lasting presence in public life.
Supporters insist the changes clarify Pakistan’s military command structure. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has said the reforms are part of an agenda to strengthen defence capabilities in line with modern warfare needs. However, critics argue the amendment grants sweeping power to the armed forces at a moment when many believe military influence should be restricted, not expanded. Munizae Jahangir of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says, “There is no balance between the military and the civilians,” adding that the power dynamic has again shifted heavily toward the military.
The amendment also introduces major changes to Pakistan’s judiciary through the creation of a new Federal Constitutional Court. This court will rule on constitutional matters, with judges appointed by the president. Critics say this undermines judicial independence and allows the executive greater control over legal outcomes. Jahangir argues this “forever changes the shape and nature of the right to a fair trial,” raising concerns about fairness for future litigants. Arifa Noor, a journalist, says the judiciary has become “subservient to the executive” with little room for independent action.
While supporters say separating constitutional cases from other cases will reduce court backlogs, some legal experts dismiss this as misleading. Lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed argues the real backlog exists in lower courts, and focusing only on the Supreme Court does not genuinely address the problem.
The aftermath of the amendment has already shaken the judiciary, with two Supreme Court justices resigning. Justice Athar Minallah said “the constitution that I swore an oath to uphold and defend is no more,” while Justice Mansoor Ali Shah accused the government of tearing the Supreme Court “to pieces.” Meanwhile, judges can now be transferred without consent, a move critics fear the government may weaponise to pressure the judiciary.
As analysts warn of rising authoritarianism, concerns are growing that Pakistan’s political landscape is entering an era where military authority eclipses civilian power entirely. Many fear this constitutional shift will deepen grievances and undermine democratic institutions well into the future.
