Proponents of the current leadership's approach argue that the Civil Guard must maintain a unified command structure to effectively address modern security challenges. In this view, the ability of the government to appoint officers who share a common vision is not a form of manipulation, but a necessary exercise of administrative authority. Ensuring that those in the highest positions of power are fully aligned with the strategic goals of the institution is seen as vital for operational efficiency.
From this perspective, the traditional promotion system often failed to account for the need for cohesive leadership during periods of significant institutional reform. By prioritizing officers who demonstrate a commitment to the current administration's objectives, the leadership aims to streamline decision-making and eliminate internal friction that has historically hampered the force's progress. Supporters maintain that this is a standard practice in large organizations where unity of purpose is essential for success.
Furthermore, those backing the current policy emphasize that the Civil Guard remains a professional body where merit is still a primary factor. They argue that the allegations of bias are being exaggerated by those who are resistant to necessary changes or who feel entitled to positions based on seniority rather than current performance. For these stakeholders, the focus should remain on the force's ability to deliver results for the public, rather than on internal personnel disputes.
Ultimately, this view holds that the government has a mandate to shape the leadership of the Civil Guard to ensure it meets the evolving needs of the state. By fostering a team that is synchronized in its approach, the institution can better navigate the complexities of national security. The current process is viewed as a legitimate effort to modernize the force and ensure that its top brass is capable of executing the government's security agenda without internal obstruction.