The first ever political march in Pakistan’s history was led by Khan Abdul Qayum Khan in October 1958, the President of Pakistan Muslim League from Gujrat to Rawalpindi against Ayub Khan. The march was cut short when Khan Abdul Qayum was arrested at Lahore Ravi Bridge. This practice continued with regular intervals and is continuing. These marches caused enormous economic cost associated with major political marches and sit-ins in Pakistan. Great 2014 “Tsunami March”, the 2022 “Haqeeqi Azadi” march, the 2024 “Final Call” 27 march and the current cycle of political mobilization, without realizing its economic consequences. The economic cost is certainly an important subject. But an assessment of these marches should not stop at calculating losses. It is equally important to examine why these marches took place, what political circumstances produced them, and whether the phenomenon can fairly be attributed to only one political party. Pakistan’s political history tells a broader story. Different major political parties, at different times and under different governments, have used mass protests, long marches, rallies and dharnas as instruments of political pressure. Therefore, the phenomenon should be viewed as a distinguished feature of Pakistan’s political culture rather than as the exclusive strategy of one party. There is no denying that prolonged political agitation can impose a heavy economic cost. In 2014, for example, the government submitted figures to the Supreme Court estimating substantial losses associated with the Islamabad sit-in, including the impact of currency depreciation, the stock market and the increased rupee value of external debt. Besides postponement of various heads of states state visit to Pakistan. More recently, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb warned that strikes, road blockages and prolonged sit-ins could result in an estimated Rs120 billion a day in economic losses, with services, industry and agriculture all affected. But there is another side to the story. Why do political parties resort to the streets in the first place? Questions concerning mass rigging of elections, allegations of irregularities, governance, political rights, accountability and relations between political institutions have repeatedly provided the background to major protests. Whether one agrees with the stated justification of a particular march is a separate question; nevertheless, the reasons for the mobilization deserve to be examined alongside its economic consequences. Unfortunately, virtually every major political force has, at one time or another, participated in confrontational politics. When one party is in government, another may take to the streets; when the political equation changes, the roles can be reversed. The result is a continuing cycle in which today’s protester may become tomorrow’s government-and tomorrow’s government may face the same tactic from its opponents. There is another uncomfortable aspect of Pakistan’s political culture that cannot be ignored: the persistent allegations of corruption and misuse of public resources.NAB’s own published figures show the enormous scale of its recovery claims. Its data records total recoveries of about Rs17.77 trillion up to June 2026, although these figures include different categories of direct and indirect recoveries and therefore should not simply be equated with cash recovered from corruption cases. NAB also reported recoveries of Rs2.962 trillion during the first quarter of 2026 and Rs2.45 trillion during the second quarter. These figures, whatever interpretation one places upon them, underline a serious governance problem: a country struggling with debt, weak public finances and inadequate economic growth cannot afford either prolonged political disruption or the loss of public resources through corruption and mismanagement.
The tragedy is that political confrontation and governance failures reinforce one another. Governments spend enormous resources on security and administration during prolonged protests; businesses suffer; daily-wage workers lose income; supply chains are interrupted; investors become cautious; and ordinary citizens ultimately bear much of the cost. Democracy certainly includes the right to disagree, protest and demand accountability. But democracy should not mean bringing the entire machinery of the state and economy to a standstill whenever a political dispute arises. A mature democracy provides multiple constitutional and institutional channels for resolving disagreements: Parliament, courts, election institutions, negotiations, committees, the media and peaceful public demonstrations. Protest is a legitimate democratic instrument, but protest need not necessarily mean blocking roads, shutting down businesses, paralyzing cities or occupying the capital for prolonged periods. Pakistan needs to move from a culture of confrontation towards a culture of political dialogue.Perhaps the political parties themselves should consider something unprecedented: a “Charter of Marches. “Instead of another Charter of Democracy that remains largely aspirational, all political parties could agree on basic rules for political protest. No prolonged long marches intended to paralyses the capital or major cities. No indefinite sit-ins blocking roads or essential public facilities. Political parties should give prior notice of demonstrations and designate specific places for peaceful protest. Hospitals, schools, markets, transport routes and essential services should remain accessible. Demonstrations should remain peaceful and disciplined. Political disputes should simultaneously be pursued through Parliament, dialogue and constitutional institutions. Short-duration protests may be undertaken without disrupting the ordinary functioning of the country. No political party should demand from its opponents a standard that it is unwilling to follow when it is itself in opposition.Such an understanding would not take away the democratic right to protest. It would civilize the exercise of that right. Around the world, democracies witness demonstrations and political protests. Citizens march, governments are criticized and opposition parties mobilize. But the objective should remain to express disagreement-not to hold the economy hostage. Pakistan has paid a considerable price for political confrontation. It cannot afford to keep repeating the same experiment and then calculate the losses after every march. The country needs political competition, but it also needs economic continuity. It needs accountability, but accountability must apply across the political spectrum. It needs protests, but protests should be peaceful, proportionate and responsible. Otherwise, the marches will continue, the losses will continue, the borrowing will continue-and ordinary Pakistanis will continue paying the bill.Perhaps the time has come for all political parties to agree on one simple principle: democracy gives us the right to protest, but it does not give us the right to paralyses the country.
