Kamal Mustafa
27th Amendment Explained: Strengthening Pakistan’s Defence While Preserving Civilian Control Meta Description: This article explains how the 27th Constitutional Amendment restructures Pakistan’s defence leadership while maintaining full civilian oversight.
I’ve always been struck by how Pakistan navigates some of the world’s toughest borders, with neighbors who don’t always act predictably. For years, I’ve asked myself how we can modernize our military without shaking the fragile democratic system we depend on. When President Asif Ali Zardari signed the 27th Constitutional Amendment on November 15, 2025, I saw a major reorganization take place — merging top leadership roles, abolishing the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, and urging the Army, Navy, and Air Force to work more closely together.
Some see this as overdue housekeeping in a world where threats emerge from land, cyberspace, and political arenas. Others fear it might concentrate too much authority in a single set of hands. Grounded in Article 243, which makes clear that the armed forces answer to the federal government, I view the reform as an effort to modernize while preserving civilian oversight — but naturally, it prompts a question: is this modernization or overreach?
Looking abroad, I have noticed that nations often integrate their armed forces without consolidating unchecked power in one office. In the United States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff coordinates the Army, Navy, and Air Force to plan and synchronize strategy, yet without issuing direct operational orders. India introduced its Chief of Defence Staff in 2019 with a similar aim: to unify services under a single planning framework while keeping each branch operationally independent. From my perspective, Pakistan’s new Chief of Defence Forces role follows the same reasoning. It strengthens joint planning and coordination across services rather than centralizing authority, demonstrating how countries facing complex security challenges rely on integrated structures to ensure coherent strategy.
Some worry that elevating the Army Chief to Chief of Defence Forces could concentrate authority. Personally, I think this concern overlooks the design of the role. Its purpose is to coordinate the services without undermining civilian oversight or the independence of each branch. Reflecting on past conflicts, I have seen how valuable seamless collaboration can be, and the current model aligns planning, procurement, and joint training to bolster national readiness against conventional and emerging threats.
Replacing the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, in my view, creates a more functional structure rather than relying on ceremonial rotations. All services remain integrated and represented, including a vice–Chief of Defence Forces who rotates between the Navy and Air Force, while national bodies continue to include all service chiefs. The reform prioritizes alignment and cooperation over scattering decision-making across symbolic posts
I have also heard concerns that the nuclear command chain could tilt toward the Army. From what I understand, these fears are misplaced. Oversight remains with civilian-led authorities, and all service chiefs participate in the process. The amendment focuses on the organization and coordination of conventional forces, leaving nuclear stewardship firmly under elected leadership.
Some critics suggest the Air Force might be subordinated to land-centric command. From my perspective, this is not the case. Joint structures provide a broader platform for all branches to voice their priorities, allowing the Air Force to strengthen its role in modern strategic planning. Integration actually enhances influence for all services, particularly in an era where air and space capabilities are central to national security.
Republic Policy WhatsApp Channel
Questions about judicial immunity have also surfaced. I see this provision as a safeguard for routine administrative decisions against litigation delays, not a removal of accountability. Parliamentary committees, executive oversight, and constitutional provisions remain fully in place. Other democracies adopt similar measures to prevent strategic decisions from being stalled by court interventions.
Concerns about tenure extensions or personality-driven leadership are, in my opinion, unfounded. Terms remain under civilian control, and stable leadership ensures continuity without entrenching any individual. Institutional mechanisms guide promotions and doctrinal updates, prioritizing systems over personalities and professionalizing leadership. Republic Policy YouTube
Some have suggested the Navy and Air Force might be systematically diminished. From my observation, the opposite is true. Integration elevates their priorities, giving both services a stronger voice in long-term planning and national strategy. Smaller services often gain influence in joint structures because decisions focus on shared objectives rather than branch-specific concerns.
Finally, I see the amendment as reinforcing the principle that institutions outrank individuals. Codified structures replace ad hoc practices, ensuring decisions are driven by law and enduring procedures rather than personal preference. Civilian leadership remains supreme, guiding strategy, setting priorities, and maintaining constitutional control over all armed services.
I see the 27th Constitutional Amendment as a step toward making Pakistan’s defence more capable without sidelining civilian authority. By bringing the Army, Navy, and Air Force together under clear structures and learning from international examples, it strengthens coordination and planning. Most importantly, I feel confident that civilian leaders remain firmly in charge, ensuring that both national security and our democracy move forward together.
