Pakistan: Law, Democracy and Political Polarisation — Which Direction Should We Take?

By Waqar Malik

Every civilised and democratic country in the world has its own constitutional, legal and administrative system. States are governed through laws and institutions, and citizens have rights, but these rights also come with responsibilities. Freedom of expression, political activity and peaceful protest are democratic rights, but these rights should be exercised within the framework of the law so that the rights of one individual or political group do not affect the rights of other citizens.

Pakistan is also a democratic country where citizens have the right to form political parties, participate in elections, express their opinions, hold peaceful protests and present their political demands. But democratic freedom does not mean that any political party can protest wherever and whenever it wants, block roads indefinitely, disrupt the lives and businesses of ordinary citizens or attempt to bring state institutions under political pressure.

Democracy is not only about rights; respect for the law, tolerance, acceptance of political differences and respect for the constitutional responsibilities of state institutions are also fundamental parts of democracy. If every political party begins to believe that its interests and demands are above the law, the state becomes weak and political disorder begins.

Pakistan was established in 1947. Since its creation, the country has faced political instability, economic difficulties, military and democratic governments, constitutional crises and various internal and external challenges. Different political parties and military governments have governed the country, but Pakistan is still struggling to resolve many of its fundamental problems.

In the past, Pakistan experienced different periods of development. Political differences existed, but mutual relationships, tolerance and respect for one another were also visible in society. Today, political division has created a new gap within society. In many families, political differences have turned into personal disagreements; brothers are becoming distant from one another, and friends are becoming divided because of their political affiliations.

After Imran Khan’s political era, political division in Pakistan increased significantly, and its effects were also felt throughout society. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government faced significant political and economic difficulties, and its policies and performance were strongly criticised by the opposition and various sections of society. Eventually, opposition parties united and presented a vote of no confidence, resulting in Imran Khan losing the office of Prime Minister in April 2022.

Afterwards, Imran Khan linked the removal of his government to an American conspiracy and foreign interference. This narrative became an important part of his politics and was accepted by millions of his supporters, while many others rejected the claim and questioned the evidence behind it.

Regardless of how anyone views this political matter, political differences should not be turned into hatred against the state or national institutions.

However, within the framework of the law, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf workers held protests on numerous occasions for their political demands. On different occasions, roads were blocked, incidents

of damage to public and private property were reported, and incidents of firing and violence also took place in some areas, resulting in the loss of human lives.

The events of 9 May 2023 were an extremely serious turning point in Pakistan’s political tensions, when attacks and acts of vandalism were reported at various locations, including military installations. These events hold an extremely concerning place in Pakistan’s political history.

Every political party in Pakistan has the right to peaceful protest. However, attacking military installations, government or public property, engaging in violence or putting the lives and property of ordinary citizens at risk cannot be acceptable in any democratic society. Such matters should be decided not through political slogans or pressure on the streets, but through the courts and the law.

Imran Khan is facing various legal cases. His party has continued to describe some of these cases and judicial proceedings as political, while on the other hand, various allegations and evidence have been presented by state institutions and the prosecution. Decisions have been delivered by the courts in some cases, while legal proceedings in other matters have continued.

Therefore, every case should be viewed according to its legal status. Instead of presenting an allegation as a final conviction, respect for the court’s decision and the legal process is essential. The same principle should apply equally to every political leader, every ordinary citizen and every accused person.

During the night between 20 and 21 August 2026, reports emerged that Imran Khan was transferred from Adiala Jail to a hospital under appropriate security arrangements for a medical examination. According to the government’s statement, a team of doctors, including an ophthalmologist, cardiologist and physician, carried out a detailed medical examination and declared him medically fit. His sister was also present during the medical process, and after the medical examination, Imran Khan was transferred back to Adiala Jail.

This raises a fundamental question: if doctors do not determine that there is a medical need for a prisoner to remain in hospital, what is the legal basis for keeping him in hospital simply because a political party demands it?

If doctors decide that a prisoner requires hospital treatment, he should of course be provided with the necessary medical facilities. However, if, after a complete medical examination, there is no medical need for continued hospital admission, then a political party’s demand that he must remain in hospital becomes a political demand rather than a medical necessity.

The decision to transfer a prisoner to hospital, provide medical treatment or return him to prison should be based on medical necessity, prison laws, court orders and the relevant law, rather than street protests or political pressure.

The same principle should apply to Imran Khan as it does to any other prisoner in Pakistan.

Around the world, political parties and organisations legally engage lobbying firms, lawyers and public relations organisations to present their positions internationally. In principle, this is not unusual. However, concern arises when political activities abroad become aimed at creating an environment against Pakistan that could damage the country’s reputation, economy or state institutions.

Criticising a government or highlighting genuine human rights issues is a democratic right. But deliberately creating international pressure against Pakistan is a different matter and deserves serious national debate. Unnecessary external interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country is also inappropriate.

At present, there is discussion of lobbying and political campaigns at various levels in the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States regarding Pakistan’s political affairs and in support of Imran Khan. If the purpose of such activities is to pressure Pakistan into imposing political decisions according to the preferences of a particular group or to damage the country’s reputation, then this becomes a serious national matter.

Similarly, if allegations exist that financial assistance has been provided from abroad to any political or public movement, those allegations should be transparently investigated. An allegation should not be treated as a proven fact, but if illegal financial assistance is established, it should not be ignored either.

Pakistan’s Armed Forces are an important national institution. Their primary responsibility is the defence of the country, protection of national security and safeguarding Pakistan’s sovereignty. Politics and running the government are the responsibility of elected political leadership, while the military should be given the opportunity to perform its professional responsibilities and should not be unnecessarily dragged into political controversies.

In different countries around the world, armed forces are regarded as a fundamental pillar of national security and defence. Political differences are one matter, but respecting a national defence institution and recognising the sacrifices of its personnel should be the responsibility of the entire nation.

The Pakistan Army has made countless sacrifices for the defence of the country. The fight against terrorism, protection of the borders, assistance to the public during natural disasters and emergencies, and Pakistan’s participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions demonstrate that the Pakistani military has played a role not only in national defence but also in international peace and stability.

Under the leadership of Field Marshal Asim Munir, the Pakistani military is emerging as a strong, organised, capable and professional national institution and is carrying out its responsibilities. Pakistan’s positive role being highlighted around the world and its contribution towards peace and stability are matters of national importance and appreciation. Many Pakistanis regard the leadership of Field Marshal Asim Munir as a positive and important opportunity for the country and consider him a blessing and a gift from Allah Almighty for Pakistan.

Respect for national institutions and recognition of the sacrifices of military personnel are signs of a healthy national society. Political differences are one thing, but targeting the military with hatred and political conflict is not in Pakistan’s national interest.

Our soldiers and officers make sacrifices, even giving their lives, to protect the country’s borders, its people and national security. Their services and sacrifices should be respected and valued.

The Pakistan Army is the protector of the country. Politicians are responsible for the political system, the judiciary is responsible for justice, and the people are the true owners of Pakistan. When every institution works within its constitutional and legal boundaries, Pakistan will become stronger, more stable and more prosperous.

Today, the greatest danger is not only political disagreement but also social division. Families are becoming divided, brothers are disagreeing with each other, and friends are becoming distant because of political affiliations. No political party should claim a monopoly over patriotism.

14 August is Pakistan’s Independence Day. This day does not belong to any single political party or political leader; it belongs to the entire Pakistani nation. Whether it is Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Pakistan Muslim League-N, Pakistan Peoples Party or any other political party-Pakistan belongs to everyone.

However, political division was also visible during the recent Independence Day. If any political party limited 14 August to the circle of its own political affiliation and did not include Pakistanis with different political views, this is a regrettable example of our overall political division.

Being Pakistani does not require being a member of PTI, nor is it necessary to be a worker of any political party.

The opposition must also understand that the right to protest is not a licence to paralyse the state or cause difficulties for ordinary citizens. At the same time, the government must also ensure the rule of law, fundamental rights and respect for political differences.

The European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries should also be expected to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, its people and its legal system, and should not allow their territories to be used for illegal or violent activities against Pakistan.

A strong, stable, democratic, prosperous and peaceful Pakistan is not only in the interest of the Pakistani people but also in the interest of the entire world.

Pakistan does not need the victory of any single political party today.

Pakistan needs the rule of law, political tolerance, strong institutions, responsible media, economic stability and national unity.

We must decide whether we will use politics for Pakistan, or use Pakistan for politics.

Let there be disagreement, let there be politics, let there be criticism, and let there be peaceful protest-

But Pakistan comes first.

Writer, Journalist & Political Analyst