The Information Adviser of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) has recently declared that the right to protest is a fundamental democratic right and that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party will no longer wait for No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to exercise this right. In a passionate statement, he emphasized the urgency of reclaiming democratic freedoms and urged the public to support their cause. He indicated that PTI would proceed with rallies and demonstrations, undeterred by the need for official permissions, asserting that democracy is under threat and requires a vigorous response.
This stance has ignited a broader debate across the country. The PTI, which has been at the forefront of opposition protests, has often faced criticism from rival political leaders. Senior columnist and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Senator Irfan Siddiqui has pointed out that PTI’s track record shows a pattern of violence in their protests. According to Siddiqui, PTI’s protests are rarely peaceful, and unlike other political parties, they have historically involved clashes with law enforcement. This, he argues, has led to restrictions on PTI’s activities. Siddiqui elaborated that when protests are genuinely democratic and peaceful, as with other parties, authorities do not impose as many barriers. He noted that if PTI’s record was comparable to parties like the PML-N or PPP, they would have received NOCs without issue.
Newly appointed PTI spokesperson Sheikh Waqas Akram countered these claims by asserting that PTI has always adhered to legal protocols. He pointed out that PTI has consistently sought permission for rallies and marches, obtaining NOCs through court orders when necessary. Despite this compliance, he accused the government of stifling their gatherings by refusing them access to central and accessible locations. Akram highlighted that PTI has been forced to hold rallies in remote areas, far from urban centers, where it is challenging for supporters to attend. He suggested this is a deliberate tactic to undermine PTI’s visibility and impact, yet he proudly noted that supporters still manage to show up in large numbers, underscoring the party’s strong base.
The right to peaceful protest has long been enshrined in democratic principles. However, the current political climate in Pakistan has seen a shift where PTI, after a history of confrontational politics, is now emphasizing their rights under the democratic system. The party maintains that despite facing tear gas, arrests, and physical confrontations from law enforcement, they will persist in their protests. Akram made it clear that PTI’s determination to protest is driven by a belief in democratic rights, and they will not be swayed by government tactics of suppression.
As of now, it has been nearly a year and a half since the significant events of May 9, which continue to cast a shadow over PTI. The incidents of that day, which involved violent clashes and the destruction of public property, have not yet resulted in convictions for any accused individuals. Many suspects, initially named by the government as key figures in the unrest, have been released on bail. This leniency, according to critics, is indicative of a broader failure in the justice system. Poor case preparation and weak investigations have allowed these individuals to escape legal consequences. Supporters of the PTI argue that these incidents highlight a double standard in Pakistani politics, where similar actions by PML-N and PPP members have led to releases on bail due to alleged trumped-up charges.
This perception of unequal treatment is fueling further frustration within PTI ranks. PTI leaders have begun to draw parallels between their current situation and the period when they held power from 2018 to 2022. During PTI’s tenure, allegations of biased legal actions against opposition figures were rife. Leaders from PML-N and PPP were frequently embroiled in what they claimed were baseless cases, only to later be acquitted or granted bail by the courts. This cycle of accusations, arrests, and subsequent releases has created a sense of déjà vu among PTI supporters, who feel they are now on the receiving end of a similar political strategy.
Looking back, PTI’s ascent to power in 2018 was marked by a surge of support for their message of anti-corruption and reform. However, as rivals point out, the way PTI governed bears striking similarities to the current administration. The recurring theme of legal battles and the use of law enforcement as a political tool seems to transcend party lines in Pakistan. A major point of contention for PTI’s opponents is the 2014 sit-in, a months-long protest that paralyzed parts of Islamabad. While the PTI justified their actions as a protest against electoral fraud, critics argue that they showed a blatant disregard for law and order, setting a dangerous precedent.
The current government, led by the PML-N, argues that PTI’s approach to protests is fundamentally different from the peaceful rallies of other parties. They point out that unlike PTI, neither the PML-N nor the PPP have ever orchestrated events similar to May 9, which left a deep scar on Pakistan’s political landscape. Both parties have historically refrained from prolonged sit-ins or violent demonstrations, which, they claim, reflect their commitment to lawful and democratic practices. According to these parties, the May 9 incident was an aberration in Pakistani politics, and PTI’s aggressive tactics during the event have set them apart in a negative light.
Further adding to the tensions are statements from key PTI leaders, such as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, who recently declared that the country is on the brink of revolution. In his address, he warned that PTI’s supporters would respond forcefully to any attempt to suppress their movement. This rhetoric has raised concerns about the potential for violence, especially given the volatile political environment. Gandapur’s calls for tribal gatherings and unity reflect a broader strategy to rally support from the traditionally marginalized regions of Pakistan, which have often been hotbeds of political unrest.
The Punjab Information Minister criticized Gandapur, accusing him of inciting violence and attempting to pit citizens against each other. This sentiment was echoed by Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar, who described Gandapur’s remarks as a thinly veiled threat of insurrection. Tarar expressed concern that PTI’s aggressive posture could lead to another incident like May 9, which he views as a regrettable chapter in Pakistan’s history. He argued that PTI’s leadership is recklessly endangering their supporters by encouraging confrontations with law enforcement.
PTI, however, remains defiant. Leaders insist that the government is deliberately provoking them by obstructing their peaceful gatherings and unfairly targeting their workers. PTI’s rank and file have vowed to continue their protests until the release of their leader, Imran Khan, who remains incarcerated. Despite the odds, they remain committed to what they perceive as a struggle for justice. The party’s narrative is that they are being persecuted for challenging the status quo, and that their cause is fundamentally just.
The PTI’s recent decision to expand their protests to additional cities underscores their shift in strategy. Having exhausted what they see as their legal options, they are now taking their grievances to the streets on a national scale. PTI Sindh leader Haleem Adil Sheikh openly acknowledged that mass mobilization is crucial for securing Khan’s release. He alluded to upcoming rallies in Karachi, promising that these would be landmark events in Pakistan’s political history.
As PTI gears up for this new wave of protests, there are mixed reactions from the public. On one hand, there is sympathy for PTI’s right to protest, which is a core tenet of democracy. On the other, there is concern about the implications of PTI’s increasingly confrontational rhetoric. Other political parties, such as Jamaat-e-Islami, have also held protests without resorting to incendiary language or threatening revolutions. This distinction, say PTI’s critics, is what sets them apart and raises doubts about their commitment to peaceful protest.
The founder of PTI has called for nationwide protests, framing it as a fight for democracy. However, statements from leaders like Gandapur have cast a shadow over these efforts, as they appear to be escalating tensions rather than fostering dialogue. Gandapur’s failure to deliver on his promise to secure Khan’s release within a fortnight has only added to the perception that PTI is grasping at straws. By resorting to incendiary language and appeals to tribal loyalties, he risks alienating potential allies and further polarizing the nation.
Ultimately, PTI’s supporters argue that their cause is just and that their right to protest should be respected. However, the growing animosity between PTI and the government has created an atmosphere where compromise seems increasingly unlikely. Observers warn that unless both sides take steps to de-escalate, Pakistan could face further unrest. PTI’s best option may lie in pursuing legal avenues to resolve their grievances, as history has shown that confrontation often leads to unintended consequences.
In conclusion, while PTI’s commitment to protest as a democratic right is undeniable, their approach has raised serious questions about their intentions and methods. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether PTI can achieve their goals through peaceful means, or if their actions will lead to further division in an already fractured political landscape.