PTI demonstration. Photo: Express
ISLAMABAD:
February 8 was projected by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as a decisive moment to translate street power into political momentum, but despite intense promotion as a major show of public strength and resistance, the uneven response on the ground raised new questions about the party’s mobilization capacity and political direction.
While some groups of supporters attended, the overall impact fell short of expectations. The most surprising thing is that many of the party’s top leaders remained absent from the scene. The protest apparently came and went without delivering the political blow it had promised, according to political analysts who observed the events.
However, the Tehreek Tahaffuz-e-Aain Pakistan (TTAP), in which the PTI plays a key role, hailed the strike as a success. PTI General Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram thanked the people for their “massive participation in the lockdown strike”.
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi echoed this assessment in a post on X, congratulating all political parties within the TTAP for “a successful attack” and urging continued peaceful resistance.
However, the government dismissed the protest as ineffective. The information minister said the public had rejected the confrontational policy, while Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz claimed in X that the protest had “zero impact”.
However, for many observers, the real test of February 8 was not the turnout numbers or the television images. It was a question of whether the protest would create enough pressure to force the government and the powers that be to soften their hardline stance towards the PTI and its jailed leader, Imran Khan.
After all, one of the stated goals of the protest was to seek his release.
“Government emboldened”
Many analysts believe that the protest failed to produce any tangible results. On the contrary, they maintain that the absence of senior PTI leaders and the relatively lackluster show may have further emboldened the government.
Journalist and political analyst Ehtisham Ul Haq said the protest largely failed. Speaking to The Express PAkGazette, he said the call for closure “didn’t have much traction”.
“Yes, it was said that everything would come to a standstill, that there would be traffic jams, closures and that the government would kneel. That did not happen, so I would not say that the call was a success. The PTI did not obtain anything concrete in political terms,” he added.
Observers were also surprised by how the PTI and the broader opposition handled the protest, even in its traditional stronghold, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Reports indicated that Peshawar largely remained open on Sunday despite the strike call.
While a PTI rally took place, the absence of outspoken KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi drew attention.
The party justified his absence by arguing that, as acting prime minister, he was not expected to attend such meetings. However, critics pointed out that his predecessor, Ali Amin Gandapur, had previously led thousands of PTI supporters to Islamabad while serving as prime minister.
Political analyst Hassan Askari weighed in, calling February 8 “a very low-key affair, much smaller than had been anticipated or planned.”
“Lahore was busy with the Basant celebrations and the rest of Pakistan did not fully respond. I do not expect nationwide protests to emerge, given the number of factors limiting such mobilization,” he added.
Responding to whether the PTI gained anything politically from the protests, Ehtisham Ul Haq said the exercise mainly served as a signal to the government that the protests could continue if dialogue failed.
“The most important point is that in Pakistan, and globally, change does not happen without institutional backing. History shows that when the establishment is aligned, change is possible; without it, it is not. Pressure tactics alone do not work. Internationally, this government is recognized and the economy has shown some stabilization. The narrative that strikes would paralyze the system and force concessions did not materialize.”
“Overall, the PTI is heading towards a dead end unless a constructive dialogue emerges. Discussions with the prime minister could open a way forward. The prime minister has said that he wants to address the issues through parliament, and if that happens, there may be some relief for the PTI. Otherwise, continued agitation alone is unlikely to yield results,” he said.
Turning to the broader political landscape, Askari noted that Pakistan’s trajectory remains difficult to predict due to multiple variables in motion.
“The government claims it wants dialogue, but its actions suggest otherwise, focusing instead on keeping the PTI under control,” he said.
He added that the PTI itself is grappling with serious organizational and leadership challenges, with senior figures and close associates imprisoned or in hiding.
“This has created a crisis that prevents the party from making clear strategic decisions. As a result, it remains uncertain whether meaningful dialogue will take place and whether the government is truly serious about engaging.”
Both Haq and Askari warned that PTI must recalibrate its messaging. They argued that persistent hostility and abuse on social media is counterproductive.
They observed that politics is about opening doors, not about banging your head repeatedly against walls. A change in approach could still create room for limited relief.
