Conflict Alerts # 685, 5 December 2024
Nuha Aamina In the news
On 28 November, a resolution to ban Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf in a cabinet meeting was passed in the Balochistan Assembly. Separately, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called for the formation of an anti-riot force. On the same day, a PTI member on the basis of anonymity revealed that senior PTI members had critiscised Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and Khan’s wife, Bushra Bibi for carrying out the protests to D-Chowk. A senior PTI leader, Shaukat Yousafzai opined that Chief Minister Gandapur was scapegoated as Bushra Bibi, who was neither a member nor the leader of the party called the shots in the three-day protest.
On 27 November, frontier constabulary and about 1,500 policemen were ordered to evacuate the PTI protestors from D-Chowk, Islamabad. It resulted in nearly, 1,000 protestors being detained. Additionally, PTI founder, Imran Khan claimed that eight were killed. Meanwhile, Gandapur, who led the PTI convoy from his province, claimed that hundreds were shot by state authorities.
On 26 November, the Home Department of Punjab issued an extension of Section 144 until 28 November and invoked Article 245. This provision allows the government to call on the army forces to enforce a “Law and Order” situation.
On 25 November, clashes between PTI supporters and security personnel broke out claimed the life of a police officer at the Hakla interchange. Separately, a government delegation negotiated with a PTI team regarding the shift in protest venue from D-Chowk to Sangjiani. During a press brief, Minister of Interior Mohsin Naqvi claimed that the PTI had received Khan’s approval to change the venue. However, Bushra Bibi carried the protest to the originally decided venue.
Issues at large
First, an interparty deadlock. Days before the 24 November protests were launched, party negotiations were underway between the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf and the Pakistan Muslim League (N) (PML-N). The former proposed the release of Khan, while the latter made assurances to the PTI. Both sides failed to agree to one another’s demands. The Islamabad High Court declared the protests illegal as the capital’s administration imposed a ban for two months ahead of the 24 November demonstrations. Nonetheless, there was a communication between the government and the PTI, where the government asked the opposition to shift the protest destination from Sangjiani to D-Chowk. This request did receive Khan’s approval however the ground realities were far different.
Second, PTI’s miscalculation. Khan’s exaggerated call for the “do or die” protests did not go as planned. The party’s recurrent calls for protests have not brought about any ground-breaking results. As a consequence it has led to dwindling crowds and even eroded the party’s credibilty. The hastiness of the protests resulted in a setback for the party as they were not only illegal but it also led to arrest warrants against PTI affiliates. Since the protests did not have any major impact on the government, it brings to question of whether the public has rejected such an approach.
Third, discord within the PTI. The continuation of the protest to D-Chowk instead of Sangjani led to wide led criticism within the PTI. It reflected upon the existing faultines within the party. Similar events took place when some PTI members of the National Assembly confirmed their membership to the Parliamentary Committee on Judges' Appointments, responsible for the appointment of judges to the newly constituted Judicial Commission. The editorial mentioned above also observed how the party has been experiencing a form of brain drain where the “saner” leadership is stepping down while the populist leaders resort to big talk, conspiracy theories, and contentious statements to mobilize the polity.
In perspective
The use of force and growing state disenchantment may cause backlash for the government. The short-term gain for the state further resulted in the portrayal of the PTI being mistreated. With the existing public discontent among the masses as the federation has not made many popular decisions, the clamp down on the protests further widens the gap between the people and the state. Instead, the government should have allowed the demonstrations to carry on as per schedule and neutralized violent exchanges that may have emerged in the process.
On the other hand, the PTI also needs to stop taking to the streets and start engaging in deliberations and addressing its internal issues before campaigning against the government.