Pakistan is perhaps unique in the sense that, throughout its history, rulers and political leaders have repeatedly experimented with systems of governance, laws and constitutional amendments to suit their immediate requirement. Unfortunately, almost every system eventually met its Waterloo. The fundamental reason has been the lust for power the desire to retain authority at all costs, often at the expense of democratic institutions and national stability. Our history is chequered with examples of rulers leaving office unceremoniously, yet we have failed to learn the lessons. The Founder of the Nation, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, once faced a tragic symbol of the difficulties confronting the new state when his ambulance ran out of fuel and no alternative vehicle was immediately available. Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated while addressing a public meeting. Since then, it is difficult to name a prime minister who completed his tenure and left office in a genuinely ceremonial and peaceful manner. Military rulers, too, ultimately faced similar political reversals. The controversy surrounding the 2018 general elections, including the much-discussed Form 47 issue, remains part of our political history. The subsequent political developments, particularly the removal of Imran Khan from office and the events that followed, have plunged the country into prolonged political confrontation. Since the ouster of Imran Khan, Pakistan has experienced continuing political turmoil and instability. The consequences are not confined to political parties or their leaders. The economy, ordinary citizens and the functioning of the state all suffer. Whenever roads are blocked, markets become inaccessible and major cities are virtually closed down, economic activity inevitably suffers. Inflationary pressures can increase further when the movement of goods is disrupted. Traders lose business, daily-wage workers lose income and patients, students and ordinary citizens face unnecessary hardship. There is no question that peaceful protest is a constitutional right. It is an essential part of a democratic society. But the right to protest does not mean the right to paralyse cities, damage public or private property, attack state institutions or prevent ordinary citizens from going about their daily lives. Unfortunately, protests in Pakistan have frequently become violent. Once a large crowd gets out of control, anti-state elements and provocateurs can easily exploit the situation. In a country already facing serious security challenges, this is an extremely dangerous development. The present confrontation has one striking feature: the absence of flexibility on both sides. At the heart of the dispute is, among other issues, the question of access to Imran Khan in prison. If the law permits meetings with an incarcerated person, it is difficult to understand why a chief minister of a province should be prevented from meeting the founder of his political party, subject of course to the applicable prison rules and security requirements. This should not be treated merely as a question of personalities. It has become a major symbol of the confrontation. A small measure of flexibility could therefore help reduce tensions considerably. Similarly, the opposition must recognize that legitimate political demands cannot justify indefinite disruption of the capital or other parts of the country.
There is another contradiction that deserves attention. Political parties announce protests, governments take security measures, roads are blocked, containers are placed, and after days or weeks of confrontation both sides eventually sit across the table and begin negotiations. If dialogue is ultimately necessary, why not begin with dialogue in the first place? The announcement of a long march has already shaken Islamabad. The capital has, on many occasions, been turned into a virtual “container city”, disrupting business, education, transport and the daily lives of millions. Can a country struggling with economic difficulties afford such a luxury? The answer is an emphatic no. Parleys conducted amid continuing confrontation, or negotiations accompanied by threats of another protest, cannot produce lasting peace. Negotiations require trust, flexibility and a willingness to compromise. The government has greater responsibility because it controls the machinery of the state. It must therefore demonstrate greater political maturity. This does not mean accepting every demand of the opposition. It means identifying which demands are legitimate, which are negotiable and which cannot be accepted under the Constitution or law. The government should, for example:( a) Ensure lawful access to prisoners without unnecessary political obstruction, while maintaining security and prison regulations’ (b) Open a permanent channel of dialogue with the opposition instead of waiting for protests to force negotiations (c)Identify a limited number of immediately negotiable issues and establish clear timelines for resolving them (d)Avoid inflammatory statements by ministers and political leaders that deepen confrontation(e)Guarantee peaceful protest, while making it equally clear that violence, destruction and attacks on public property will not be tolerated. (f) Keep essential roads, hospitals, markets and business routes open so that ordinary citizens do not become hostages to political disputes.
The PTI, on the other hand, cannot expect every demand to be accepted simply because it has popular support. Political leadership also means exercising restraint.The party should: Keep protests strictly peaceful. Prevent party workers from attacking police, public property or state institutions. Avoid prolonged blockades that punish ordinary citizens. Present its demands in a clear, written and negotiable form. Use Parliament, courts and dialogue wherever these avenues remain available. Make it clear to supporters that violence is neither acceptable nor helpful to the party’s political cause.PTI also needs to understand that every protest carries a security risk. Pakistan has been confronting terrorism since 9/11, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has suffered enormously from terrorist attacks. Political differences should not be allowed to turn this national tragedy into another source of partisan conflict. No responsible government would want its citizens or security personnel to be attacked, and political parties should not exploit such tragedies for political advantage. Both sides need to take a step back. The government should announce a structured political dialogue, preferably through a small committee comprising representatives acceptable to both sides. PTI should suspend any immediate escalation of its protest while negotiations are underway. Both sides should agree that certain issues particularly those involving prisoners’ lawful access, political activities, election-related grievances and constitutional matters will be discussed separately and resolved according to law. A mutually agreed code of conduct for protests and negotiations could also be developed. It should guarantee the right to peaceful assembly while prohibiting violence, destruction, obstruction of essential services and attacks on state institutions. There is nothing wrong with either side claiming a political victory. But the real victory would be for Pakistan if both sides could reach an agreement without anyone losing face. Time is running out. Every additional day of confrontation carries an economic and security cost. Political parties will survive. Governments will change. Leaders will come and go. But the damage inflicted on the economy, institutions and social harmony can take years to repair. The central question should therefore not be who wins the confrontation, but who saves the country from another unnecessary crisis.
Pakistan has experimented with governments, constitutions, amendments, political alliances, military interventions and street politics for decades. The result has too often been the same: confrontation followed by instability, instability followed by economic decline, and eventually another political crisis. We must break this cycle. The government should show the flexibility expected from the side in power. The opposition should show the responsibility expected from a major political force. Both should return to the negotiating table with a genuine willingness to compromise.Protests may create pressure, and negotiations may buy time, but neither can substitute for a political settlement. The country needs neither another long march nor another prolonged sit-in. It needs a negotiated solution based on the Constitution, law, political tolerance and mutual restraint. If both sides follow the just path and put Pakistan before party interests, the result will ultimately be better for everyone.
