The recent crackdown on protesters in Islamabad has not only brought the streets of the capital to a standstill but also ignited a larger conversation about the very nature of protest, power, and the limits of democratic rights. What we witnessed over the past few days was not merely a clash between opposition supporters and the state, but a vivid demonstration of how democracy, when strained, can fracture into a conflict between civil liberties and state authority. It reveals the fault lines in our democracy that have grown wider and more dangerous as both the people and the state struggle to navigate their respective roles in a truly democratic society. At the heart of this issue lies the question: What does it mean to protest in a democracy? How do we reconcile the right to dissent with the imperative of maintaining public order? And, perhaps more provocatively, what are we willing to lose in this pursuit of justice and change? Pakistan’s Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly – a cornerstone of democracy that allows citizens to express dissent, hold their government accountable, and seek justice. On paper, this is an unassailable right. Yet, when civilians take to the streets, the consequences are often far from peaceful. Thousands of protesters are detained even before the protests begin. The streets of Islamabad are barricaded, and mobile internet services are shut down – “precautions”, the government argues, to prevent chaos and safeguard public order. But the escalation is inevitable. As protesters clash with law enforcement, the state responds with a heavy hand, employing tear gas, rubber bullets, and reports of live ammunition fired at unarmed civilians. A protest that descends into chaos and destruction is no longer a protest; it becomes a fight for control, a contest of power. This volatile scenario presents an uncomfortable truth: while the right to protest is constitutionally protected, its exercise is often constrained by a tension between the pursuit of justice and the preservation of public order. The crux of the issue lies not in the mere existence of this right, but in how it is wielded and responded to. The question that looms large is not whether citizens have the right to protest, but rather how far they are willing to push that right, and at what cost to the larger social fabric. Protest and Violence: A Dangerous Spiral Protest, in its purest form, is an expression of dissent, a demand for change, a plea for justice. It is the pulse of democracy, where voices, no matter how marginalized, find an avenue for expression. But it must remain peaceful. The moment a protest transforms from a peaceful assembly into an eruption of violence, it loses its moral compass. Violence, regardless of its origin, delegitimizes the cause, obscures the message, and turns the very act of dissent into a weapon of destruction rather than a tool for change. Protesters, driven by deep-seated grievances against the government, often feel justified in their actions. They view their cause as a fight for their rights- against what they perceive as a rigged or corrupt system. In their eyes, they are fighting for justice, and the streets become their stage for resistance. However, when protests veer into violence, they give the state the justification to label them as a threat to public order. And once the state perceives a protest as a threat, the heavy hand of the law comes down, often with little regard for the consequences. The state’s response, however, can be equally troubling. The heavy deployment of security forces, the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and reports of live ammunition being fired at protesters, remind us of how far a government can go to maintain control. The logic of “preserving public order” is invoked by the authorities to justify their heavy-handed approach. However, there is an irony in using violence to quell dissent in a society that prides itself on its democratic framework. How can a government that claims to represent the people justify using force against its own citizens, even when those citizens are exercising a constitutional right? By resorting to violence, the state risks creating a cycle of anger, alienation, and distrust that only deepens the political divides. The Shared Responsibility of Protesters and the State The problem is not as simple as a binary of “us vs. them.” Both sides are entangled in a complex web of accountability, where the actions of one side inevitably provoke a reaction from the other. Protesters have a right to demand change, but their methods must align with the principles of peaceful assembly. A protest that descends into chaos and destruction is no longer a protest; it becomes a fight for control, a contest of power. Similarly, the government’s duty is to protect the rights of its citizens, even when those citizens are critical of the state. Excessive force only exacerbates the problem and alienates those who might otherwise support the government’s position. At this juncture, it is worth considering the bigger picture. What does this cycle of violence and repression achieve in the long run? Does it bring us closer to a more stable democracy, or does it simply push the country deeper into political turmoil? We must confront the uncomfortable reality that both protesters and the government have failed to meet their responsibilities. Protesters, driven by passion and a sense of injustice, have failed to recognize that violence undermines the legitimacy of their cause. Governments, on the other hand, have too often resorted to authoritarian measures to preserve control, rather than engage in meaningful dialogue with dissenting voices. This confrontation between the state and the people does not have to be inevitable. It is possible to break the cycle of violence and repression, but it requires both sides to engage in a new kind of politics- one that prioritizes dialogue over confrontation, justice over repression, and peace over force. The writer is a policy analyst and researcher with a Master’s degree in Public Policy from King’s College London.