By Sardar Khan Niazi

In a democracy, the right to protest is sacred. It gives voice to the marginalized, power to the people, and serves as a vital check on authority. However, when the exercise of this right infringes upon the basic rights of others–for the most part, the right to free movement–it becomes necessary to strike a balance. The recent spate of mass rallies in major cities, including Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad, has brought this conflict into sharp focus. Thousands of commuters have found themselves trapped in endless traffic jams, stranded for hours with no access to alternative routes or public transport. Emergency vehicles have struggled to sail across bunged up roads. Students have missed exams; workers have lost wages; patients have been unable to reach hospitals on time. Despite the fact that protestors have every right to demand attention to their causes, they do not have the right to paralyze entire cities. Pakistan’s urban infrastructure is already under immense pressure. Overpopulated cities in a short supply of public transport, poor traffic management, and of advanced years road networks are almost not equipped to absorb the impact of large-scale demonstrations that block major intersections and arteries for hours or even days. What might be a peaceful protest in principle can, without difficulty, turn into chaos in practice, especially when there is no prior warning or coordination with city authorities. Governments must take a proactive role here. While banning protests outright is not an acceptable solution in a democratic society, designating specific areas for demonstrations–such as parks, grounds, or open spaces–can help ensure that rallies are visible and impactful without being troublemaking. Islamabad’s Red Zone or Karachi’s designated protest zones, though imperfect, are examples that could be refined and emulated across the country. However, it is not only the government’s responsibility. Political parties and civil society groups organizing such rallies must act with civic sense and foresight. The idea that making a city grind to a halt is the only way to get noticed is both outdated and counterproductive. If anything, it alienates the very public whose support is often crucial to the success of a protest movement. A cause loses moral strength when it becomes the reason a mother cannot get her child to the emergency room or when schoolchildren are forced to walk home in the heat because buses are not running. In addition, the use of digital platforms for protest is still underutilized in Pakistan. Peaceful sit-ins, flash mobs in designated public spaces, social media campaigns, and symbolic demonstrations outside government offices can all make powerful statements without disrupting daily life. It is time we rethink how we protest–not to silence dissent, but to make it more effective and less disruptive. The media also has a role to play. Sensational coverage of blocked roads and clashes often overshadows more thoughtful reporting on the causes behind the protest or the suffering of those affected by it. Balanced reporting must highlight both the reasons for protest and its wider impact on urban life. As Pakistan moves forward, it must learn to accommodate both protest and public order. One cannot be sacrificed for the other. A maturing democracy requires both a space for dissent and a commitment to public responsibility. Citizens must demand both their right to protest and their right to move freely through their cities. These are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually reinforcing pillars of a just society. It is time to evolve our protest culture–one where the number of roads it can block does not measure the strength of a movement, but by the change it can bring about without harming everyday lives. 

ReplyForwardAdd reaction