Islamabad, Pakistan: The jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan has said that the extension (of Army chief) made institutions weaker rather than making them stronger. This comment has appeared on the official X account of Imran Khan run by PTI officials.
Interestingly, in 2019 when Imran Khan was Prime Minister, he notified the extension of the then Chief of Pakistan Army Gen (now retired) Qamar Bajwa in August 2019 although Bajwa was scheduled to be retired in November 2019. A notification signed by Imran Khan on August 19 stated that General Bajwa was “appointed for another term of three years from the date of completion of current tenure”. The decision was justified based on the “regional security environment”. However, things became complicated when the Supreme Court heard a petition on this issue but Gen Bajwa continued in his office and then on Jan 1, 2020, the Federal cabinet under the chair of Prime Minister Imran Khan, gave approval of amendment in Army Act for extension in tenure of Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa. An emergency meeting of the cabinet was convened under the chair of Prime Minister Imran Khan to review the amendment in the Act for the extension of service of the army chief.
On January 3, 2020, the government of Imran Khan introduced legislation to extend the tenure of the army chief in line with a Supreme Court order. On Jan 7, 2020, the National Assembly approved legislation for the extension of the then Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s term by another three years.
Now this same Imran Khan is criticizing the extension in the tenure of Armed chiefs although this time government had not made laws for individual centric rather amendment is in general and for all chiefs. The government amended the Pakistan Army Act 1952 to increase the tenure of the army chief from three years to five years. This time government also passed two more important laws, one to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court, and the other to amend the Practice and Procedure Act.
As soon as the law was passed, PTI, maintaining its tradition, started criticizing the government and the forces of Pakistan and at the same time took a U-turn and termed the extension of the army chief’s tenure anti-democratic and Imran Khan called the development as:
“The occupation of the country is dominated by the mafia which is adopting every tactic to prolong its power and occupation, which neither the constitution nor the law nor political morality allows.”
He once again incited the people to come out on the streets to spread chaos. He tried unsuccessfully to fool the public into forgetting that he had decided to extend the then Army Chief during his tenure in the interest of his government.
If the founding PTI was really against the extension of military leadership, PTI should have considered it before approving the extension of the tenure of the then-army chief during his tenure. At the time of the extension, the founding PTI had called the decision necessary for the country’s stability, but now is calling the same action as “politics and government interests and undesirable”.
In addition, the founding PTI and its allies themselves supported the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which provided legal justification for the extension of military leadership. This decision was taken under political interests at that time, now the PTI founder is blaming it on others. If expansion was an undemocratic process, why did the founding PTI itself become a part of it? The contradiction in his position is clear that he became a part of this system for his interests and now when his interest is affected, he is criticizing the same system.
According to political experts, the claim of the founder of PTI and its supporters that they raised their voices for democracy and independence of the judiciary in the country does not seem understandable when they have been supporting such constitutional amendments and decisions. This changing political situation makes it clear that Khan’s position is changing according to his gains and he is a prime example of political opportunism.
In this situation, it is important for the people to look at the courage and good intentions of the political leaders who decided to work beyond their personal interests rather than in the interest of the country. It should be remembered that democracy, the rule of law, and the constitution are not important only as long as it is in one’s interest. It is clear from the current position of the founder of PTI that his political decisions keep changing according to time and circumstances, and his interests may be behind this change, not public benefit.
