PARLIAMENTARY debate, judicial forums, and institutional safety valves often fail to rescue the public when elite capture is deeply entrenched and the cost of living becomes unbearable. Fresh elections may not offer much hope either, as the electoral process is widely perceived to be managed to favour a chosen flock. Under such conditions, public protest becomes an appealing instrument for citizens in distress. Across the world, there are many examples where mass protests have achieved their objectives while remaining peaceful.
Pakistan, however, presents a troubling dilemma. Its economic and governance problems are severe. Household incomes are under intense pressure from high electricity bills and an unjustified petroleum levy. The government continues to overtax the salaried class and formal businesses instead of reducing its own operating expenses. Such conditions usually trigger widespread public unrest. Yet the streets of Pakistan, particularly in Sindh and Punjab, remain largely calm.
Political parties are unwilling to mobilise people over agonising economic concerns, with the exception of Jamaat-i-Islami. While the silence on the part of mainstream parties is quite understandable, JI presents an interesting case study. The PPP, PML-N, and MQM are part of the ruling coalition and are enjoying the perks of power. A party sitting in a government that implements painful economic policies cannot credibly stage a sit-in against that same system.
The PTI’s absence is more tragic. In the past, the party led large protest movements. For now, even as it embarks on another drive for its founder’s release, it is effectively without a central leadership, and its decision-making structure is fragmented. Its current incapacity is therefore better explained by state pressure and a leadership crisis than by indifference to economic issues.
JI’s strength comes from organisation rather than the ballot box.
JI, on the other hand, is active on the streets though virtually absent from parliament. While JI has consistently failed in Pakistan’s electoral arithmetic, its street mobilisation has contributed to policy changes on several occasions. In fact, JI has never primarily been a vote-thirsty party. Its strength has traditionally come from organisation rather than the ballot box. It possesses a disciplined body of workers, a student wing, a women’s wing, and an extensive welfare network, which together give it a strong followers’ base. It therefore plays to its strength. This is perhaps one of the key factors that explain its continued presence on the streets.
JI’s periodic public campaigns allow it to keep its followers engaged and available. Its organisational capacity is a standing political asset that might otherwise remain underused. Interestingly, other political parties lack sufficient motivation to stay continuously engaged with their followers. For example, the PPP and PML-N rely heavily on electables and influential families rather than on grassroots workers. JUI-F has a captive audience in its madressah network, which can be mobilised whenever needed. JI does not possess such advantages. Its support base is principally shaped by the ideology of Maulana Maududi. Even a powerful ideology requires rituals to remain alive. JI’s protests and dharnas may therefore function as planned rituals to sustain its organisational life-force.
Second, protests give JI something that elections have repeatedly denied it: visibility. Even when a protest does not immediately alter government policy, it places the party at the centre of the national debate. Major parties, associated with elite political families along with est-ablished vote banks, have unparalleled access to state institutions and media platforms. JI cannot compete with them through these channels; it seeks political relevance and visibility by taking ownership of issues that directly affect ordinary citizens.
Third, there is nothing at stake politically for JI under the current governance structure. Free from the compromises of incumbency, JI can occupy the principled opposition space. By leading protests against inflation and the petroleum levy, JI can present itself as the only party addressing common despondencies. This positioning may earn it sympathy beyond its traditional support base.
Finally, there is a moral dimension to JI’s activism. The party frames politics as a form of public responsibility rather than merely a contest for government offices. Its supporters expect it to speak out against injustice even when the likelihood of immediate electoral gains is limited.
While JI must reassure the youth, women, minorities, and other segments of society regarding its ideological image, it would be a missed opportunity if its campaign against extractive public policies fails to attract their support.
The writer is an economist.
Published in Dawn, September 10th, 2026
