The cycle has become familiar: whenever the opposition announces a protest, the government responds with a heavy hand. Citizens are detained, roughed up, and arrested, while security officials later receive commendations for their actions. The real political battle increasingly seems to take place not during the protest itself, but in the days leading up to it, when the state deploys its machinery to suppress dissent. This pattern is once again visible as the PTI prepares for its September 27 march on Islamabad to demand the release of its jailed founder. Across the country, preventive measures are being rolled out under the pretext of maintaining order and protecting infrastructure.
The scale of these actions is striking. Reports suggest that at least 155 preventive detention orders have been issued under the Maintenance of Public Order ordinance, with lists prepared for further arrests of PTI leaders and workers. Police leaves have been cancelled, containers and roadblocks are being readied, restrictions have been imposed on rallies, and Section 144 has been enforced in Punjab with plans for broader application. While authorities do have a responsibility to maintain peace, deploying multiple overlapping instruments against a political party’s leadership and supporters cannot be considered reasonable. Such measures send the troubling message that even the anticipation of protest is treated as a crime.
The government’s heavy-handedness in curtailing the opposition’s ability to exercise lawful political rights must not be overlooked. In any democracy, citizens are entitled to express their will through peaceful protest. The state has every right to prosecute those who deliberately employ violent tactics, but that does not justify pre-emptive detention of individuals who have committed no offence. Past protests may have turned violent, but history cannot be used as a blanket excuse to suspend constitutional rights for all.
Suppressing dissent in this manner risks deepening political alienation. Peaceful protest provides citizens with an outlet to air grievances and engage in the democratic process. Denying that space only fuels resentment and increases the likelihood of confrontation. A government confident in its legitimacy does not need to criminalise the mere anticipation of protest. By treating dissent as a security threat, the state undermines its own credibility and erodes trust in democratic institutions.
The consequences of this approach will only grow more severe with time. If citizens are denied peaceful avenues to express discontent, frustration will manifest in more disruptive ways. The government must recognise that dialogue and tolerance are stronger tools than repression. Allowing space for peaceful protest is not a concession of weakness but a demonstration of democratic maturity. The choice before the state is clear: continue down the path of suppression and risk instability, or embrace dissent as part of the democratic fabric and strengthen legitimacy through engagement.