The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), battered by its recent protest on November 26, is once again bracing for confrontation with the government. Its founder, former Prime Minister Imran Khan, has now adopted a passive-aggressive strategy, signaling a civil disobedience movement starting December 14 if his demands are not met. The demands are simple: the immediate release of political prisoners and the formation of a judicial commission to investigate the events of May 9, 2023, and November 26, 2024. While these demands may seem straightforward and achievable, the potential impact of the proposed civil disobedience movement raises critical questions.
Historically, civil disobedience has been a tool to challenge authority without direct confrontation, relying on moral and collective pressure to compel governments to act. However, PTI’s own track record with such movements is uninspiring. Its 2014 civil disobedience call largely fizzled out, failing to mobilize the masses or achieve tangible results. This raises concerns about the feasibility of Mr. Khan’s latest plan.
For a civil disobedience campaign to succeed, it requires more than mere public statements. It needs meticulous planning, grassroots mobilization, and effective coordination. However, PTI’s fractured leadership has repeatedly shown its inability to unite during critical moments. The November 24 protest stands as a stark example, where the absence of a coordinated strategy allowed the government to dismantle the protest with ease. Without a clear roadmap or cohesive leadership, the planned civil disobedience risks becoming another inconsequential exercise.
The political climate also presents significant challenges. While PTI supporters remain angered by the government’s heavy-handedness, whether they are ready to make the personal sacrifices a successful civil disobedience movement demands is doubtful. Economic self-sabotage, in the form of refusing to pay taxes or bills, can only work if the broader public feels a deep commitment to the cause. Without accessible leadership to inspire and guide, the movement risks failing to gain traction.
However, the government would be unwise to dismiss the threat outright. Civil disobedience, even as a symbolic gesture, can destabilize an already fragile political and economic environment. The demands put forth by Mr. Khan are not unreasonable. The high number of political prisoners is a blight on the principles of civilian governance and must be addressed. Gradual releases would be a low-cost concession for the government, alleviating both political and moral pressure. Similarly, forming a judicial commission to investigate the events of May 9 and November 26 would not only address public skepticism but also establish facts over competing narratives.
The government has shown it can exert its power, but governance is not only about strength. It must demonstrate the ability to compromise and create space for dialogue. Ignoring PTI’s demands will only prolong the political impasse. Negotiation, grounded in mutual concessions, remains the only path forward.
