Islamabad, Aug 22 — Pakistan's recent political trajectory suggests that the "hard state" approach is becoming a permanent feature of governance rather than an episodic response to isolated crisis, a report has stated.
The designation of the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) as a terrorist organisation, the use of anti-terrorism laws against political actors and journalists, the suppression of protests in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), communications blackouts and tightening restrictions on civil society all point to the relocation of political dissent from the democratic arena to the security apparatus. In effect, opposition is no longer merely being contested; it is being securitised, noted Greek lawyer, writer, and journalist Dimitra Staikou wrote in 'International Policy Digest'.
“Officials may defend each measure as a proportionate answer to a discrete threat. Taken together, however, they point to a more consequential transformation. Security is functioning not simply as a policy objective but as the state’s dominant claim to legitimacy. That claim is especially potent in a country confronting militancy, economic instability, regional rivalry, and chronically weak civilian institutions,” Staikou detailed.
“Yet the broader the definition of threat becomes, the easier it is to treat protest, journalism, and political organisation as dangers rather than essential features of public life,” she noted.
On June 5, Islamabad designated the JAAC a terrorist organisation and invoked anti-terrorism legislation against the movement, which had become a leading force articulating social and political grievances in PoK. The designation was followed by mass arrests, communications blackouts, restrictions on public gatherings and a heavy deployment of security forces.
Then, on July 27, so-called legislative elections were held in the occupied territory against a backdrop of deep polarisation and violence. Clashes between protesters and security forces resulted in deaths and injuries, prompting international organisations to raise concerns over the excessive use of force, communications shutdowns, and the use of anti-terrorism laws to silence political dissent in PoK, Satikou mentioned.
“These measures fit a familiar pattern in Pakistan, but they also illuminate a broader shift in how states govern. Political, social, and economic disputes are increasingly recast as questions of national survival. Once an issue enters that register, governments can claim a mandate for extraordinary measures, expanded executive power, and narrower space for dissent. The language of emergency does more than describe a threat; it changes what the state is permitted to do in response,” she wrote.
She warned that the real danger is not repression alone, but its normalisation, which allows exceptional powers to become entrenched through bureaucracies, budgets, and vested interests.
“Each new crisis then validates the machinery built to address the last one. Over time, the distinction between governing through law and governing through emergency blurs, while citizens are asked to accept diminished freedom as the unavoidable price of stability. Pakistan’s significance, therefore, extends beyond South Asia. Its experience cannot be reduced to another familiar story of democratic backsliding or authoritarian consolidation. It raises a larger question about the evolution of statehood,” Staikou mentioned.