Abdul Basit Alvi
The tenure of the Army Chief is a crucial factor in shaping the professionalism, operational readiness, and overall relationship between the military and civilian leadership. In many countries, the duration of an individual’s tenure as Army Chief can have significant implications for both the military and the broader political landscape.
One of the main arguments in favor of a longer tenure for the Army Chief is that it offers greater stability and consistency in military leadership. A prolonged term allows the Army Chief to implement long-term strategic initiatives, manage complex defense reforms, and ensure the military operates smoothly without the disruptions that frequent leadership transitions can cause. A prolonged tenure for an army chief can be particularly critical during times of national security challenges or when the military is engaged in long-term operational commitments. In countries dealing with external threats or internal instability, having continuity at the top of the military leadership helps ensure defense strategies remain consistent and that military operations proceed without disruption. A longer tenure also enables the army chief to cultivate stronger relationships with political leaders, international allies, and military personnel, promoting trust and more effective collaboration.
In addition, extended leadership can contribute to strengthening military institutions. It provides the army chief with the opportunity to address structural issues, implement necessary reforms, and enhance the professionalism of the armed forces. Military reforms—whether in modernization, training, or operational readiness—often require sustained leadership to achieve long-term goals. An extended tenure allows for more comprehensive planning and the ability to follow through on these initiatives. Furthermore, longer terms provide the army chief with the time and authority to oversee the professional development of the officer corps, resulting in a more competent and skilled leadership team that is better equipped to address future challenges.
The length of an army chief’s tenure plays a key role in balancing military leadership, civilian oversight, and national defense. While extended tenures can sometimes be viewed as a threat to democratic governance and civilian control, there are cases where such extensions have positively impacted the independence and professionalism of the armed forces. In these instances, longer terms have allowed the military to stay focused on its primary mission—defending the nation—while maintaining political neutrality and upholding democratic institutions. With the right safeguards in place, extending the tenure of the army chief can enhance national security and contribute to democratic stability.
One notable example is General Valery Gerasimov, who has served as the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation since 2012. His long tenure has positively influenced the Russian military’s ability to implement long-term strategies, improve readiness, and maintain a high level of professionalism. Under his leadership, the Russian military has modernized its doctrines, shifting focus to hybrid warfare, cyber capabilities, and rapid-response forces. The continuity in leadership has allowed these complex reforms to be carried out smoothly, avoiding the disruption that might arise from frequent changes in command. Moreover, this extended leadership has enabled Gerasimov to build strong institutional relationships that facilitate better coordination across different branches of the military, ensuring that Russia’s defense forces are well-prepared for a range of potential conflicts. A longer tenure for the army chief also enables the military to establish and pursue long-term defense objectives, especially when confronting emerging and evolving security threats. This strategic flexibility is essential for countries with global ambitions or those navigating complex geopolitical landscapes. For Russia, maintaining continuity in military leadership has been pivotal in shaping its defense strategy in regions like Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and beyond.
Turkey offers a unique case study in the relationship between the army chief’s tenure and military independence, particularly considering the country’s history of military coups and the significant role the military has historically played in politics. While the Turkish military has traditionally been a dominant force in political affairs, recent reforms have sought to curtail its political influence and reinforce civilian oversight. Despite these changes, the extended terms of army chiefs have played a key role in preserving the professionalism and operational effectiveness of the military. Historically, long-serving army chiefs, such as General İlker Başbuğ (2008–2010), have played a key role in stabilizing Turkey’s defense institutions during periods of political and economic instability. Extended leadership tenures allowed these commanders to focus on modernizing Turkey’s military and upholding the professionalism of the officer corps, even amid significant political challenges. A longer tenure also enabled the army chief to retain control over the military’s internal affairs, ensuring the force remained apolitical and centered on its core mission—national defense—while shielding it from undue political influence by civilian governments or political factions.
In this context, Pakistan has also decided to extend the tenure of its services chiefs. The recent amendment to the Services Act by Parliament has been widely supported, especially by members of the Armed Forces. There is broad consensus that a three-year term for services chiefs was insufficient to implement meaningful long-term changes, and increasing it to five years will help address this challenge.
A shorter tenure of just three years also meant greater political control over the military, contributing to the politicization of the armed forces. When compared to other modern military powers, this adjustment aligns Pakistan more closely with global norms. For instance, in the United States, the tenure is four years; in the UK, it’s three to four years; in China, five years; in Germany, three to five years; and in France, four years. Research and global examples suggest that longer tenures for services chiefs help ensure the military’s independence and protect it from external interference. This extended leadership period allows chiefs to make decisions that not only benefit the military in the medium to long term but also support broader national interests.
Furthermore, the extension of the services chiefs’ tenure in Pakistan will bring several additional benefits, such as policy continuity, adequate time for implementing a strategic vision, greater stability, and the potential to rebuild trust between the government and military leadership, which has sometimes been strained in the past. Overall, this move strengthens the professionalism of the armed forces while safeguarding the institution from political interference, offering more autonomy to military leaders to manage military affairs—ultimately benefiting both the armed forces and the country.
Pakistan is currently grappling with significant internal and external challenges, including financial crises and terrorism. These issues demand continuity in leadership, and the current military leadership is deeply familiar with these challenges. A leadership transition would require time for new leaders to understand the situation fully, while every moment is critical for the country’s response.
It is important to note that these amendments are not intended to benefit any individual, but rather to enhance the independence, professionalism, and strength of Pakistan’s military. The people of Pakistan recognize the importance of this move and fully support it as a step toward strengthening the country’s defense and stability.
