Ahsan Naveed
The recent encounter between former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa, and a group of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) supporters outside London’s Middle Temple brings to light a deeply concerning trend within the realm of political expression: the line between protest and harassment has blurred alarmingly. While protesting is an essential tenet of democratic societies, the nature of political dissent is changing, raising critical concerns about the tactics employed by various factions.
On the day of the incident, Justice Isa was attending a distinguished event, a setting that is typically devoid of confrontational politics. However, his presence drew a hostile crowd, which detracted from any pretensions of peaceful protest. Observers have characterized the incident not merely as an expression of discontent, but as a blatant assault on Justice Isa’s dignity and integrity. This kind of behaviour underscores a troubling dynamic within the political culture, particularly that of PTI supporters, whose actions seem more aligned with intimidation than with substantive political engagement.
It is important to affirm that dissent is a vital component of democracy; critique of judicial decisions, political actions, and institutional behaviours should be welcomed as a sign of a healthy political environment. Nevertheless, the events outside Middle Temple strayed far from the ideal of constructive protest and instead showcased a troubling approach to dissent that lacks respect for democratic processes. When political opponents, former judges, or dissenters are treated as targets rather than the issues they represent, we must question the nature of the engagement. What are the supporters of PTI protesting? Why resort to aggressiveness against individuals rather than confronting the political ideologies or decisions they disagree with?
This incident is emblematic of a broader trend within certain diaspora communities associated with the PTI, where dissenting voices have often been silenced through coercion and personal attacks rather than rational discourse. This pattern, unfortunately, is not entirely new. The rhetoric propagated by PTI’s founder, Imran Khan, particularly since his ouster via a no-confidence vote, has encouraged a confrontational approach toward political adversaries. His statements—advocating for making “examples” of defectors and implying social repercussions for their families—have cultivated a toxic climate in which harassment of dissenters is not merely accepted, but often defended.
While disagreements are an inherent part of a vibrant democracy, the tactics of intimidation and harassment employed by some political factions represent a dangerous diversion from democratic ideals. Such methods not only devastate personal liberties but undermine the foundations of civil discourse, bringing forth a culture of fear and silencing minority opinions. This climate of repression serves to discourage open dialogue and often causes non-PTI supporters to feel isolated and vulnerable within their communities, with an implicit warning: align with us or face the consequences.
Alarmingly, the aggressive tactics exhibited by PTI supporters have begun to influence other political factions in Pakistan, creating a pervasive “with us or against us” mentality that permeates the wider political landscape. No party seems entirely shielded from the allure of coercive tactics which, while seemingly effective in the short term, ultimately degrade the ethical integrity of political engagement. If not addressed, this troubling trend threatens to prop up a cycle of incivility and divisiveness, where each faction responds to hostility with hostility.
For Pakistan’s political culture to avoid descending further into chaos, political leaders must take a stand against such bullying. Particularly, leaders within the PTI have a responsibility to guide their supporters away from intimidation tactics. Real leadership involves fostering an environment where constructive discourse can flourish—where differences are not met with hostility but are instead engaged with thoughtful debate. Failure to condemn these tactics only serves to exacerbate polarization and solidify the notion that opposing views must be quashed, rather than understood.
Restoring civility to political engagement in Pakistan will require a broad and determined effort from all spheres of society. This commitment must be grounded in empathy, respect, and a genuine willingness to listen to differing viewpoints. Only through promoting these fundamental values can Pakistan hope to cultivate a political atmosphere in which engagement is encouraged, and all voices can be freely expressed without fear of reprisal.
Hence, the incident involving Justice Isa is more than just an isolated event; it is a symptom of a broader malaise affecting political life in Pakistan and its diaspora. The ongoing trend of political bullying and harassment erodes the very foundation of democracy and civility in discourse. As we look to the future, it is imperative that leaders at all levels recognize the detrimental effects of such behaviour and actively work toward fostering an environment where constructive criticism and healthy debate can thrive. Only then can Pakistan move toward a more inclusive political culture that values all voices and encourages genuine engagement over intimidation. Lastly, it is also critical to dissect the reasons for these incidents before analyzing them. Why do these incidents occur? And also, why do these incidents take the general public’s sympathy?
