“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” These famous words, attributed to John F. Kennedy, carry a powerful message for political leaders: suppressing disagreement does not necessarily eliminate it; sometimes, it makes the consequences more serious. In a democracy, political differences are not a threat to the state. The real danger emerges when dialogue is abandoned, institutions become instruments of confrontation, and constitutional powers are treated as political weapons.
Pakistan seems to be entering another tough political phase. The PML-N-led federal government, backed by a coalition government, has taken an anti-PTI stance against the PTI’s long march to Islamabad, while the KP government, under the leadership of PTI, has mobilised the support for the march. The prospect of emergency in KP has come into the politics agenda as the situation is escalating. What’s an important question to ask here: can a political disagreement be solved by emergency rule, or will it just exacerbate the very crisis the rule is meant to address?
Emergency powers granted by the Constitution of Pakistan are provided under Article 232, 233, 234, and 235 of the constitution. Article 232 applies to emergencies brought about by war, external aggression or grave internal trouble, provided that such conditions are compatible with the Constitution. Article 233 deals with restrictions on basic rights during an emergency. Article 234 addresses a situation where the machinery of government in a province is not functioning and Article 235 addresses a financial emergency. These provisions are in place to safeguard the state in exceptional situations. Political opposition should not be an excuse to use them as shortcuts. A protest, a political difference, or tensions between the federal and provincial governments alone are not sufficient to create the constitutional basis for a state of emergency.
The worldwide experience provides a clear warning. The state of emergency established after the failed coup in Turkey in 2016 led to large-scale dismissals, arrests and civil liberties restrictions that were of concern. While the government put up a front of national security, the experience made it clear how extraordinary powers can have long-term consequences on the political and institutional life. Sri Lanka has also enacted emergency laws in the past when there have been disturbances, raising concerns about limitations on peaceful demonstrations and civil liberties. These cases highlight the key point that extraordinary powers can help achieve temporary control, but not political trust, responsible government, or permanent remedies.
Such an experiment can be very expensive for Pakistan. It is still struggling with economic pressures such as inflation, public debts, mass unemployment and lack of opportunities for ordinary citizens. Article 235 allows the federal government to issue financial directions to a province including directions relating to salaries and allowances during a financial emergency. Such measures may further strain public employee wages, household incomes and critical services. Political uncertainty can also affect investment, dampen business confidence and delay economic recovery. After the country was shaken by a political standoff with costlier implications, another crisis could make recovery even more difficult for Pakistan right now when it requires stability to growth back its economy.
Cooperation is needed more urgently in the KP security situation. Terrorism has had a significant impact on the province—both for its people and its economy, and its public institutions. Effectively coordinating between federal and provincial authorities, sharing reliable intelligence and having public confidence in the state are key conditions for counterterrorism. With both governments preoccupied in political rhetoric, these priorities may be left behind. Unable to build national security on the back of a weaker collaboration between institutions that protect the citizens.
Federal Government must therefore opt for political dialogue rather than confrontation. It should bring PTI and their leadership to the table, accept valid arguments, and try to work towards a peaceful solution within the constitutional framework. Issues such as elections, political prisoners or other controversial matters should be settled by negotiations or the appropriate legal channels. PTI, meanwhile, has to ensure that its protest does not break the peace, is lawful and does not jeopardize citizens or vital public services. There is a need for both sides to show restraint, flexibility and a willingness to compromise.
In democratic practice political opponents are not expected to see eye-to-eye on every issue, but rather to resolve their differences while sustaining the constitutional process. Emergency powers must be invoked only if the constitutional circumstances are truly met – not to replace political judgment. Economically Pakistan is facing problems, terrorism, and public discontent without any additional strain on it. It can’t afford another crisis caused by the political rigidity.
A good government is neither the one that can make its opponents go away, nor the one that can make them go away for a long time. Pakistan requires dialogue rather than division, co-operation instead of confrontation and constitutional wisdom over emergency politics.