Ahmed Naveed
The hosting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) conference, a strategically significant event that typically follows a rotation among member states, was a crucial opportunity for Pakistan. In the aftermath of a tragic terror attack that claimed the lives of two Chinese engineers in Karachi, Pakistan effectively utilized this platform to bolster its diplomatic standing. By orchestrating high-level foreign attendance, Pakistan aimed to demonstrate its capability to ensure safety and security for international dignitaries. This was a strategic move to restore confidence in its stability amidst ongoing security challenges.
Pakistan’s security landscape has been marred by recurrent attacks targeting foreign nationals, particularly in the troubled Balochistan province. Additionally, there have been increasingly assertive cross-border attacks attributed to the Pakistani Taliban, underscoring the pervasive security concerns within the country. In light of these issues, government officials have quickly pointed to the impending threat of protests by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as justification for heightened security measures. The protests, called in response to the denial of access to medical care for the party’s jailed leader, have been framed as a potential catalyst for unrest. However, the validity of such a protest is rooted in legal rights, implying that the call for postponement is less about legality and more about controlling the narrative around security.
In a bid to ensure foolproof security for the SCO summit, the government imposed a comprehensive lockdown on the federal capital, lasting three days—one day longer than the summit itself. This lockdown had a severe economic impact, disrupting essential services and operations across major government ministries, including the Federal Board of Revenue. The potential delay in the filing deadline for last year’s income tax returns further underscores the urgency of the situation. The effects extended to schools and all forms of public and private economic activities, highlighting the extensive implications of such security measures.
Moreover, the government’s reliance on Article 245 of the Constitution to facilitate this lockdown raises questions about its responsibilities concerning public safety. This constitutional provision, meant to allow military assistance in maintaining law and order, requires justification, particularly because the economic ramifications of the lockdown are significant. The use of this article in a situation that is not a direct threat to the state’s security raises concerns about the government’s interpretation and application of the law. It is no secret that Pakistan’s fragile economy is ill-equipped to handle such burdens, making the resource drain from this extended lockdown particularly concerning.
Last Tuesday, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb revealed that the Economic Wing of the Finance Ministry estimated the cumulative economic loss due to the unrest in the capital at a staggering 190 billion rupees per day. Over 800,000 individuals were reported to have been affected in Islamabad, leading to detrimental impacts on the Gross Domestic Product, tax revenues, law enforcement expenditures, and business operations. The long-term effects of this economic loss could include a decrease in investor confidence, a slowdown in economic growth, and a strain on the government’s finances. After three days of enforced closure, the total toll reached an alarming 570 billion rupees—a burden that the economy can ill afford at present.
While the Finance Minister’s assessment likely referred to previous shutdowns caused by opposition protests, this instance involved a government-initiated lockdown. There is a concerning trend of completely shutting down cities during visits by foreign dignitaries, a practice that exacerbates the adverse effects on the economy and impedes the public’s right to move freely. The increase in terrorist activity necessitates vigilant security practices, but it may be prudent to consider designating alternative protest locations. Creating an international convention center outside the government’s immediate jurisdiction could be a significant step towards mitigating disruptions caused by legitimate public dissent.
