Protests with Responsibility -

By Ghulam Haider Shaikh

The right to protest is fundamental in any democratic society. It allows citizens to express their grievances, hold leaders accountable, and demand reforms when necessary. However, as the Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations (DG ISPR) rightly pointed out, when protests spiral into chaos, they inflict deep wounds on a nation’s economic and social fabric. The challenge, therefore, lies in balancing the right to dissent with the responsibility to maintain peace and stability.

In recent years, Pakistan has witnessed numerous protests ranging from political demonstrations to rights-based movements. While most begin with peaceful intentions, a lack of organization, political opportunism, or deliberate sabotage often transforms them into spectacles of disruption. Roads are blocked, businesses shut down, and public transport paralyzed, leading to billions in economic losses. For a country already grappling with inflation, unemployment, and mounting debt, such instability exacerbates economic misery and tarnishes its image before investors and the international community.

Moreover, the ripple effects of these disruptions extend beyond immediate financial losses. Factories halt production, trade activities slow down, and tourism declines, all contributing to shrinking economic opportunities for ordinary citizens. Ironically, the very people protests claim to represent become the first victims of the resulting chaos.

At the same time, curbing dissent entirely is neither feasible nor desirable. Democracies thrive on debate and criticism; silencing voices of opposition only fuels resentment and widens the trust deficit between the state and the people. The solution lies in institutionalizing protest mechanisms, designated areas for demonstrations, clear communication channels between organizers and authorities, and strict enforcement against violence and vandalism.

Political leaders, too, must act with maturity, ensuring that their calls for protest do not jeopardize national stability for the sake of temporary political gains. Economic revival and democratic rights are not mutually exclusive; both can coexist if exercised responsibly.

Pakistan stands at a crossroads where economic recovery requires political stability, and political stability depends on constructive dissent. It is time for all stakeholders, government, opposition, and civil society, to recognize that while protest is a right, chaos carries a price the nation can no longer afford to pay.

Agitation over Solutions

A politics of disruption leaves no room for progress, Imran Khan’s recent directive to Ali Amin Gandapur to accelerate the so-called “Haqiqi Azadi Tehreek” once again reflects the political pattern that has defined his approach since leaving office, politics rooted more in disruption than in constructive engagement. Rather than presenting viable solutions to the country’s economic hardships, diplomatic challenges, or governance issues, the former prime minister continues to pursue agitation that risks deepening instability in an already fragile environment.

At a time when Pakistan is struggling with inflation, a strained energy sector, and pressing security concerns, the nation requires calm, foresight, and a sense of unity. Yet, what the people continue to witness is rhetoric designed to provoke rather than to heal, to divide rather than to unite. By pushing for intensified street politics, Imran Khan appears to prioritize political theatrics over the real and immediate needs of the citizens he once governed.

The irony lies in the fact that the slogan of “Haqiqi Azadi” is being framed not as a path toward reforms, institutional strength, or economic relief, but rather as a perpetual call for confrontation. Such a trajectory only adds to political polarization, creating space for chaos that weakens democratic institutions rather than strengthening them. The notion that agitation is the only route to freedom dismisses the fact that freedom in a democratic setup is nurtured by stability, transparent governance, and respect for the rule of law.

For the people of Pakistan, especially those struggling to put food on the table, this politics of protest offers little relief. Each call for marches, sit-ins, or street demonstrations carries the risk of disruption to trade, education, and daily life. Ordinary citizens bear the brunt of such disruptions, while politicians capitalize on the optics. This widening disconnects between political slogans and ground realities is dangerous, as it erodes public trust in political leadership altogether.

What Pakistan requires today is not a politics of agitation, but a politics of responsibility. The opposition has every right to question, to protest, and to demand accountability. But when such protest morphs into deliberate instability, it undermines not only the sitting government but the entire democratic process. Imran Khan’s continued reliance on unrest may energize his political base, but for the nation as a whole, it risks being another setback at a time when Pakistan needs steady hands, not reckless slogans.