Mudassir Rizwan
Pakistan finds itself caught in a cycle of political unrest and disruption, reminiscent of a bizarre version of Groundhog Day. In the latest development, PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) founder and former Prime Minister Imran Khan has threatened the government with a civil disobedience movement starting December 14 if his party’s demands are not met. The demands—release of “political prisoners” and the formation of a judicial commission to investigate the May 9, 2023, and November 26, 2023, events—mark the continuation of a long-standing standoff between the PTI and the federal government.
Khan has constituted a five-member negotiation team, which includes prominent PTI figures like Omar Ayub Khan, Ali Amin Gandapur, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, Salman Akram Raja, and Asad Qaiser. Their mission: to present their demands to the government and, failing that, initiate the civil disobedience campaign, which would involve withholding taxes and utility payments—a tactic reminiscent of Khan’s 2014 protests. At that time, his call for withholding taxes and utility payments was intended to mount pressure on the government to accede to his demands. Yet, history shows that such strategies rarely bring about substantial political change. Instead, they tend to exacerbate existing crises without yielding any meaningful outcomes.
This latest threat comes across as a mix of defiance and political desperation. Despite the PTI’s clear posture of confrontation, one must ask: what does Imran Khan hope to achieve with this call for civil disobedience, and what are its potential consequences for Pakistan’s political and economic stability?
Political Impact and International Consequences
The call for civil disobedience has serious implications not just for Pakistan’s domestic politics but also for its international relations. Imran Khan’s rhetoric could harm Pakistan’s standing in the global arena, especially at a time when the country has only recently managed to extricate itself from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list in October 2022. This achievement was hard-earned and involved years of work to address the country’s shortcomings related to terror financing and money laundering. India had long weaponized these issues on international platforms to discredit Pakistan’s financial integrity. With Khan’s rhetoric suggesting the circumvention of formal financial channels, including the withholding of taxes and utility payments, Pakistan risks being seen once again as a country that does not adhere to international financial norms.
While the PTI’s demand for the release of political prisoners and a judicial inquiry may seem legitimate to its supporters, the manner in which these demands are being pursued could undo Pakistan’s diplomatic gains. It is crucial to remember that the global community is sensitive to any indications that a country is backsliding on efforts to meet international financial and anti-terrorism standards. Imran Khan’s move could risk isolating Pakistan once more, making it harder for the country to attract foreign investment or maintain favorable relations with international financial institutions.
A Political Strategy Based on Desperation?
Imran Khan’s call for civil disobedience is not just a political tactic; it may also be an indication of desperation. With the country’s economic indicators showing some signs of stability—such as an increase in remittances—there is a possibility that the PTI’s narrative of governmental incompetence is losing traction. A recovering economy reduces the pressure on the government to cave in to PTI’s demands. Imran Khan’s decision to escalate matters with a civil disobedience campaign could be an attempt to regain political leverage and create a sense of crisis, even in the face of improving economic conditions.
However, such an approach is not without significant risks. Pakistan is already facing a host of economic challenges, including high inflation, a fragile currency, and a growing public debt. A civil disobedience movement could disrupt the fragile economic stability the country is currently experiencing. The PTI’s call for non-cooperation with the state could have long-term negative effects on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as on everyday citizens who are already struggling with rising living costs. By pushing for mass non-cooperation, Khan risks alienating the very people who may have once supported his cause, particularly those in the middle class who are looking for stability, not further disruption.
Pl, watch the Podcast and subscribe to the YouTube channel of RP.
Confrontation Over Dialogue
Shah Mahmood Qureshi, a senior PTI leader, recently called for a “conducive environment” for dialogue. However, this call rings hollow when juxtaposed with the party’s aggressive posturing. The government is unlikely to view Khan’s civil disobedience threat as an invitation to negotiate; instead, it will likely see it as a challenge to its authority. In a polarised political environment, threats of civil disobedience only deepen divisions, making it harder to find common ground.
Instead of pushing for confrontation, Imran Khan and the PTI should focus on creating space for genuine dialogue. Pakistan’s political problems are deep-rooted and cannot be solved through blanket demands or disruptive tactics. The PTI’s current approach may appeal to its base, but it is unlikely to produce any substantive changes in the country’s governance structure. For Imran Khan, who has long championed the principles of justice and accountability, it should be clear that these principles require responsibility and a long-term vision, not reckless actions.
The Road to Stability: Dialogue, Not Disruption
What Pakistan needs today is stability. Political instability, combined with economic fragility, creates a perfect storm that undermines the country’s ability to meet the challenges it faces. Whether it’s addressing corruption, improving governance, or tackling economic issues like inflation and unemployment, Pakistan needs a political leadership that can unite the nation rather than divide it further. Imran Khan’s tactics, including calls for civil disobedience, threaten to destabilize the country further, making it harder to implement reforms that are vital for Pakistan’s future.
The path forward for Imran Khan and the PTI should be one of dialogue, not disruption. Pakistan’s political landscape is fraught with tension, and its future depends on leaders who are willing to put the country’s needs ahead of their own political interests. For a leader who has long advocated for the rule of law, justice, and accountability, it must be clear that these principles are best served through negotiation and compromise, not through escalating confrontation.
In an already fragile state, civil disobedience is not an act of defiance; it is an act of recklessness. Pakistan is in dire need of solutions, not slogans. It’s time for the PTI to recalibrate its strategy and focus on long-term solutions that prioritize the well-being of the people over short-term political gains.
