THE declaration of emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, suspending the PTI-led provincial government amid a deteriorating security situation, raises a fundamental question about Pakistan’s democratic order: can the state protect its citizens without undermining their right to determine how they are governed? The federal government has justified its decision on security grounds, while PTI has challenged it as a political manoeuvre. These competing claims require constitutional scrutiny, independent evidence and open debate. Neither security concerns nor political objections should be exempt from examination.
Pakistan’s struggle with this question reflects a deeper historical inheritance. The colonial state was organised primarily to preserve authority, maintain hierarchy and manage subjects rather than empower citizens. Political dissent was frequently viewed through the lens of public order, while loyalty and compliance helped sustain the administrative machinery. Independence transferred sovereignty but did not automatically transform these governing habits. Successive elites inherited institutions in which concentrated authority often took precedence over public participation.
This colonial legacy survives whenever criticism is treated as disaffection and disagreement as a threat to the state. Its persistence does not depend on the continuation of colonial rule; it rests on the political relationship between those who exercise power and those expected to obey it.
The emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa must therefore be assessed not only in terms of its stated security objectives but also through its constitutional implications. The state has a duty to confront militancy and protect lives. Yet the existence of a security crisis cannot, by itself, settle whether extraordinary measures are necessary, proportionate or politically justified. Those questions demand scrutiny by parliament, the courts and the public. Emergency powers must not become a means of insulating executive decisions from accountability.
The right to dissent is crucial precisely because governments cannot be the sole judges of their own performance. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly allow citizens to challenge official explanations, question public priorities and demand answers about the exercise of authority. These freedoms do not legitimise violence or excuse criminal conduct. They require the state to distinguish between genuine security threats and peaceful political disagreement.
Without this distinction, constitutional citizenship risks becoming conditional upon conformity. Elections may change governments, administrative reforms may reorganise institutions, and new provinces may bring offices closer to the people. Yet none of these measures can fundamentally alter the direction of the state if citizens remain excluded from questioning its purposes and priorities.
Breaking the shackles of colonialism consequently requires more than changing rulers or administrative boundaries. It requires transforming the relationship between authority and society, replacing the presumption of obedience with a culture of accountability. The state must recognise that public order derives its legitimacy from serving human dignity, not merely from securing compliance. The emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will test whether Pakistan can reconcile security with democratic consent. A confident state does not regard every challenge as an act of disloyalty. It permits its decisions to be questioned because it recognises that authority can err and that citizens have a legitimate stake in correcting it.
—The writer is a political analyst, based in Islamabad.