The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), once again, finds itself at the center of national discourse with its latest “final” call for protests, this time to demand the release of its founder, Imran Khan, who has been in custody for over a year. While protests are a democratic right, the timing, frequency, and impact of these demonstrations have raised pressing concerns about their implications for Pakistan’s fragile economy and international image.
This week, the PTI protests coincide with the visit of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, a dignitary whose presence in Islamabad represents an opportunity to strengthen ties and boost cooperation. Instead, the backdrop of mass protests and a locked-down capital paints a picture of instability that does little to reassure foreign investors or partners. This is not the first time PTI has chosen such a moment for its demonstrations. Their repeated “final” calls for action have become predictable disruptions that Pakistan can ill afford, especially at a time when the country desperately needs to project stability.
The economic toll is staggering. According to Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb, ongoing protests result in daily losses of PKR 190 billion to the federal government. The GDP takes a daily hit of PKR 144 billion, with export-related losses of PKR 26 billion and foreign investments declining by PKR 3 billion per day. The IT and telecom sectors, crucial for Pakistan’s economic future, have not even been factored into this grim tally. These numbers lay bare the real cost of political brinkmanship—a cost borne not by political leaders but by ordinary Pakistanis struggling to make ends meet.
The government, too, bears responsibility for exacerbating these crises. Its response to the PTI protests has been, at times, excessively heavy-handed, with cities sealed off and the capital transformed into a fortress. Such measures disrupt daily life, undermine trust in democratic processes, and send a message of intolerance rather than strength. The state must strike a balance between maintaining law and order and respecting the democratic right to peaceful protest. A strategy focused on dialogue rather than suppression could prevent the cycle of unrest that Pakistan finds itself trapped in.
The PTI, for its part, must reflect on its methods and priorities. Protests are a vital component of democracy, but they should not be wielded as a perpetual weapon to destabilize the state, especially when they so frequently coincide with moments critical to Pakistan’s international engagements. If the PTI’s aim is to highlight grievances, they must ensure their actions align with the nation’s broader interests rather than harm them.
Both sides—the government and the opposition—must recognize the long-term damage inflicted by this tug-of-war. Political instability scares away investors, isolates Pakistan on the global stage, and drives economic turmoil deeper. With a looming economic crisis, Pakistan cannot afford politics as usual.
It is time for both the PTI and the government to reassess their strategies. The PTI must consider whether their protests are achieving meaningful results or merely adding to the chaos. Simultaneously, the government must abandon its reliance on excessive force and explore ways to engage with opposition parties constructively. Only through dialogue and compromise can Pakistan hope to navigate its current challenges and emerge stronger.
The stakes are too high, and the costs are too great. Both sides must remember: their ultimate duty is to serve the people, not their egos.
