Islamabad National

Islamabad (Digital Posts) The mere holding of elections makes a country a true democracy, or the real test of democracy is how much freedom citizens have to question their rulers and state institutions.

Digital Post October 27, 2026

Democracy is not just the name of voting, electing a government or establishing a parliament, but it is a system of government in which the people have the right to elect the rulers as well as to criticize their decisions, seek answers from them and disagree with their policies. In any democratic society, citizen criticism is not merely an added convenience, but a primary means of holding rulers accountable.

In a truly democratic system, citizens can question the country’s economy, foreign policy, national security, government decisions, judicial matters and the performance of state institutions. They can disagree with the government’s policies, point out its mistakes and demand better governance. These are the fundamental rights that make people empowered citizens of the state rather than subjects.

In the modern era, social media has provided an effective platform for the common man to raise his voice. Now it is not necessary for a person to be a columnist of a major newspaper, an analyst of a television channel or an official of a political party. A common citizen can also express his views, criticize government policies and make public issues part of the national debate.

But the question is, does the common citizen in Pakistan really have this freedom? Can a person here fearlessly criticize the policies of the government, state institutions and empowered circles? And if he does, does he still have the right to express his views, or does he face various legal, political and social pressures?

These questions are not just a part of political debate, but are of fundamental importance to understand the real situation of democracy in Pakistan.

Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (also Islamic, democratic) is among the countries of the world that have given both Islam and democracy a fundamental position in their constitutional identity. The official name of the country is Islamic Republic of Pakistan. There are two important concepts in this name: Islam and democracy.

According to the constitution of Pakistan, Islam is the state religion, while under democratic principles, state power should be exercised by elected representatives of the people. From this point of view, the constitutional concept of Pakistan is that Islamic values and democratic governance can go hand in hand. (apparently not possible)

However, a fundamental question arises here. If Pakistan is a democratic state, do people here have real freedom to question their rulers, criticize government decisions and discuss the performance of state institutions.

Democracy does not mean only that elections are held every few years and the people choose their representatives. Elections are certainly an important part of democracy, but a free press, an independent judiciary, an effective parliament, the rule of law, freedom of political dissent and protection of civil rights are also essential for a fully democratic system.

Even though there are elections, but citizens feel fear while criticizing government policies, journalists cannot report freely on sensitive issues, political opponents are not given equal opportunities and state institutions are considered above public accountability, then it is natural to question the democratic status of such a system.

Here it is also necessary to explain that the system of monarchy in Islamic countries is not prevalent in all Muslim countries. Some Muslim countries are ruled by monarchies, while others have democratic or other forms of government. Therefore, it is not correct to think that Islam and democracy are necessarily opposite to each other. The real debate is to what extent Pakistan is fulfilling the requirements of its Islamic and democratic identity in practice.

The Constitution of Pakistan provides basic rights to the citizens. Among them, the rights of freedom of expression and access to information are of particular importance.

Article 19 of the Constitution gives citizens the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. However, this right is not absolute, but reasonable restrictions may be imposed under the law on specific grounds specified in the Constitution. These include issues such as the majesty of Islam, the integrity, security and defense of Pakistan, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court and incitement to an offence.

Likewise the article 19-A Gives citizens the right to access information on matters of public importance، which is applicable under law۔

The purpose of these constitutional guarantees is to ensure that state affairs are not completely hidden from public view and that citizens have the opportunity to obtain information about matters that affect their lives, rights and future.

But the existence of a right in the constitution and the freedom to exercise that right in practice are two different things.

If a citizen has the right to criticize in principle, but fears that his speech may result in prosecution, arrest, harassment or other pressure, the mere constitutional guarantee is not enough.

Similarly, if journalists are declared free on paper, but feel pressured to report on important national issues, then it becomes necessary to examine the practical quality of press freedom.

Although the right to freedom of expression exists in the constitution, citizens can exercise this right without discrimination and fear.

Today, social media has become an important tool for political expression, public debate and government accountability. In Pakistan too, millions of citizens express their views through various digital platforms and participate in debates on national issues.

But with the growing importance of social media have come concerns about government surveillance, content blocking and legal action.

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act، which pika (PECA) It is called، It was mainly created to deal with electronic crimes۔ Cyber fraud، Online Harassment، The need to crack down on identity theft and other punishable digital crimes cannot be denied۔

Any state has a responsibility to protect its citizens from online crimes, fraud, threats and harmful illegal activities. However, problems arise when the language of legal provisions is vague, the definition of crime is overly broad, or the law is applied in such a way that legitimate political criticism and disclosures made in the public interest can be prosecuted.

After the January 2025 amendments to the PICA Act, serious concerns regarding freedom of expression, freedom of the press and surveillance of digital content came to the fore. According to critics, the abuse of these amendments and related legal powers could threaten to limit critical voices.

It is important to understand here that a distinction must be made between disinformation, deliberate deception, incitement to violence and legitimate political dissent. Criticism of the government should not be a crime in itself, and transparent procedures and fair legal processes are also necessary to determine the falsity of a claim.

The purpose of law should be to protect citizens, not to intimidate them from exercising their constitutional rights. Concerns about the situation of freedom of expression in Pakistan have not been limited to political opponents or journalistic circles, but international and domestic human rights organizations have also expressed concerns in their reports in this regard.

In its report released on February 4, 2026, Human Rights Watch said that Pakistani authorities used vague and overly broad laws against the media, political opponents, and civil society during 2025. According to the organization, journalists faced threats such as harassment, arrests, enforced disappearances and physical attacks, while these conditions also reinforced the trend of self-censorship.

Similarly, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) by 4 May 2026 Your annual report to State of Human Rights in 2025 Diminishing civil liberties while issuing، Expressed concern regarding the problems facing judicial independence and increasing pressure on freedom of expression۔

According to the commission, the right to question the authorities and to demand answers was under severe pressure. The report also identified amendments to the PICA Act, the use of laws related to sedition and counter-terrorism, and the difficulties faced by journalists, political activists, social workers and lawyers.

These reports make it important to debate how effective the existing legal guarantees are in practice to protect freedom of expression in Pakistan.

Of course, not every allegation made in any report can be declared as final judicial fact without research. It is necessary to examine the facts of the various cases, the relevant laws and the government’s position separately. However, when different human rights organizations consistently identify the same issues, they should be part of a serious public and institutional debate rather than being ignored.

In a democratic state, a critical report should be seen as an opportunity to improve its performance instead of being seen as anti-state.

Now some people here will take the position that Pakistan is facing problems like terrorism, extremism, external threats and internal instability. In such circumstances, the state has every right to make and enforce laws to protect national security and maintain public order.

Any responsible state is bound to ensure the safety of its citizens, prevent violence and act against illegal activities. Freedom of speech does not mean that a person is given a blanket license to incite others to violence, threaten or plan crimes.

But the question is where to draw the line between protecting national security and suppressing legitimate dissent?

Is dissenting from a government policy an act against national security? Is questioning the performance of a state institution tantamount to being hostile to the state? Should a journalist be punished for publishing an investigative report on a sensitive national issue simply because influential circles disagree with the report? These questions should be answered based on law, evidence and principles rather than emotions.

National security is certainly important, but that does not mean that the term should be used to block all criticism. Similarly, respect for state institutions has its place, but respect does not require that the right to question their performance be eliminated.

The security of the state and the freedom of the citizens are not enemies of each other. A strong state is one that is capable of dealing with real threats while protecting the rights of its citizens.

According to the principles of international human rights, the legal basis of restrictions on freedom of expression should be clear. Their purpose must be legitimate and their application must be in accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality. A ban cannot be justified merely on the grounds of disagreement with a statement or finding it objectionable. Free media is of fundamental importance in any democratic society. The function of journalism is not only to broadcast government announcements or convey the official position to the public, but also to scrutinize government decisions, highlight public problems, point out corruption and question issues that influential circles want to keep out of public debate. If the media can only broadcast what is allowed, if journalists feel pressured to investigate important issues, and if the potential political consequences of a story must be put before the public, then the public’s right to information is affected.

In Pakistan, there have been many complaints regarding the restrictions on mainstream media and social media, blocking of content and pressure on journalists. The nature of these complaints and responsibility must be determined on the basis of the evidence in each case, but the basic principle that freedom of the media is indispensable to the stability of democracy cannot be denied.

People have the right to know where the government is spending their tax money, what decisions are being made about the country’s economy, on what basis foreign policy is being formulated and how state institutions are performing their responsibilities.

If information is not available to the citizens, how will they evaluate the performance of the rulers? And if they can’t evaluate performance, how will they make an informed decision through their vote? Therefore, free journalism is not only a problem of journalists, but a matter of every citizen’s right to information and a democratic future.

Every citizen should have the right to go to court where he feels that he has been treated unfairly, that his liberty has been restricted or that the proceedings against him have not been carried out in accordance with legal requirements.

Political dissent in Pakistan is often presented as if a person with an opposing opinion is against the country, state or national interest. However, the basic concept of democracy is that citizens have the freedom to hold different political views, disagree with government policies and suggest alternative ways.

Criticizing the government is not a conspiracy to overthrow the government, and disagreeing with a state policy is not necessarily hostile to the state. A citizen may consider the government’s economic policy to be a failure. A journalist can question the official data. A political party can protest against government decisions. Similarly, a human rights activist can demand that state institutions investigate an alleged violation. All these activities, when carried out in a lawful and peaceful manner, are part of the democratic process. However, it is important to maintain a distinction between dissent and violence, intimidation or illegal activities. Peaceful political opposition should not be equated with acts of violence, nor should the application of the law be discriminated on the basis of political affiliation.

The strength of democracy is only possible when the basic principles of law are the same for the ruling party, the opposition, journalists and ordinary citizens.

Rulers must understand that tolerating criticism is not weakness, but a sign of political confidence and democratic maturity.

Similarly, judicial review of the actions of the government and state institutions should also be possible according to law. No institution can be considered above the law merely on the basis of its power, status or authority. An independent judiciary also means that cases should be decided on the basis of law and evidence rather than political pressure, personal affiliation or any outside influence. The accused shall have the right to a fair hearing, to be given a fair opportunity to defend himself and to have his case decided in an impartial manner.

If citizens do not believe that they can get justice when their rights are violated, the practical significance of constitutional rights is weakened. That is why judicial independence, transparent legal proceedings and equal application of law are considered as the basic measures of success of a democratic system.

Political democracy and freedom of opinion

Written by: Shamim Mahmood

The mere holding of elections makes a country a true democracy, or the real test of democracy is how much freedom citizens have to question their rulers and state institutions.

These questions are not just a part of political debate, but are of fundamental importance to understand the real situation of democracy in Pakistan.

Here it is also necessary to clarify that the system of monarchy in Islamic countries is not practiced everywhere. Some Muslim countries are ruled by monarchies, while others have democratic or other forms of government. Therefore, it is not correct to think that Islam and democracy are necessarily opposite to each other. The real debate is to what extent Pakistan is fulfilling the requirements of its Islamic and democratic identity in practice.

The Constitution of Pakistan provides basic rights to the citizens. Among them, the rights of freedom of expression and access to information are of particular importance.

Likewise the article 19-A Gives citizens the right to access information on matters of public importance، which is applicable under law۔

But the existence of a right in the constitution and the freedom to exercise that right in practice are two different things.

If a citizen has the right to criticize in principle, but fears that his speech may result in prosecution, arrest, harassment or other pressure, the mere constitutional guarantee is not enough.

Similarly, if journalists are declared free on paper, but feel pressured to report on important national issues, then it becomes necessary to examine the practical quality of press freedom.

The real question is not whether the right to freedom of expression exists in the constitution or not, but whether citizens can exercise this right without discrimination and without fear.

But with the growing importance of social media have come concerns about government surveillance, content blocking and legal action.

The purpose of law should be to protect citizens, not to intimidate them from exercising their constitutional rights.

Concerns about the situation of freedom of expression in Pakistan have not been limited to political opponents or journalistic circles, but international and domestic human rights organizations have also expressed concerns in their reports in this regard.

These reports make it important to debate how effective the existing legal guarantees are in practice to protect freedom of expression in Pakistan.

In a democratic state, a critical report should be seen as an opportunity to improve its performance instead of being seen as anti-state.

But the question is where to draw the line between protecting national security and suppressing legitimate dissent?

The strength of democracy is only possible when the basic principles of law are the same for the ruling party, the opposition, journalists and ordinary citizens.

Rulers must understand that tolerating criticism is not weakness, but a sign of political confidence and democratic maturity.

If citizens do not believe that they can get justice when their rights are violated, the practical significance of constitutional rights is weakened.

That is why judicial independence, transparent legal proceedings and equal application of law are considered as the basic measures of success of a democratic system.

If citizens do not believe that they can get justice when their rights are violated, the practical significance of constitutional rights is weakened.

That is why judicial independence, transparent legal proceedings and equal application of law are considered as the basic measures of success of a democratic system.

Elections are the foundation of democracy, but not the full picture of democracy. To evaluate a democratic system, it is also important to see how free and fair the elections are, to what extent political parties have equal opportunities, whether the parliament effectively holds the government accountable, whether the judiciary can make independent decisions and how free citizens are to exercise their fundamental rights.

Similarly, it should also be seen whether anti-government parties can continue peaceful political activities. Can journalists freely criticize government and state policies? Is there scope to regulate public protests according to law? Do citizens have access to government information? And whether the rights of those who question the performance of state institutions are protected.

If the answers to these questions are not satisfactory, then the mere presence of elections cannot be considered a complete success of democracy. Democracy is a continuous process. It is kept alive not just on election day, but every day through civil liberties, institutional transparency, the rule of law and accountability of rulers.

While discussing the Islamic identity of Pakistan, this question is also important whether the principles of freedom of expression, justice, accountability and questioning the rulers are in conflict with Islamic teachings.

In Islamic political thought, justice, trust, consultation and responsibility are of primary importance. In the Holy Quran, it has been emphasized to deliver justice and trusts to their rightful owners. In verse 58 of Surah Al-Nisa, it is ordered to make decisions with justice, while in verse 38 of Surah Al-Shura, it is mentioned that the affairs of the believers should be managed through mutual consultation.

In the light of these principles, there is scope for discussion on the demands of accountability of rulers, public interest and justice. However, differences can be found among scholars on the practical interpretation of these religious principles and their relationship with different political systems.

It is not correct to say that every Muslim country has a monarchy or that Islam and democracy are necessarily opposite to each other. There are different forms of governance in Muslim societies, and to understand the nature of political systems, it is important to examine their constitutional structures, institutions, and governance practices.

Pakistan has included both Islamic and democratic identities in its name and constitution. It is therefore quite natural to question its rulers and institutions whether they are meeting the demands of justice, consultation, accountability and public rights.

If a state declares itself to be both Islamic and democratic, it must give importance to the principles associated with both these identities in practical life. Islamic identity should not mean that public questions are discouraged, and democratic identity should not be limited to elections. Rather, a better state would be one where there is rule of law, citizens get justice, rulers are accountable to the people and dissent is tolerated.

Now we come back to the original question. Here, if citizens face difficulties in criticizing government policies, journalists cannot perform their duties freely, complaints of discrimination regarding political dissent and questions about the responsiveness of state institutions continue to arise, how can Pakistan be determined to be democratic?

This question cannot be answered by mere emotional slogans.

The constitutional framework of Pakistan recognizes democratic principles, elected representatives and fundamental rights. But the practicality of any system should be evaluated on the basis of its constitutional claims as well as its actual results. If citizens have the right to access information, then government institutions must meet the requirements of transparency and accountability. If the law is equal for all, its application should not be influenced by political affiliation, social status or institutional power. If courts are established to deliver justice, citizens should have confidence in their independence and impartiality. If the parliament represents the people, it should play the role of free debate on important national issues and effective accountability of the government. The real standard of democracy is how far the state respects the rights of its citizens and how far it subordinates its powers to the constitution and law. The purpose of questioning the democratic status of Pakistan is not necessarily to negate the state. On the contrary, these questions can help improve the state system, protect citizens’ rights, and make institutions more accountable. Love of a country does not require support for every one of its policies. An aspect of true civic responsibility is to point out wrongdoing, where it is found, with reason, evidence and amicably.

A fundamental test of democracy is not how a state treats its supporters, but how it treats its critics. If a person praises the government, it is easy for him to express his views, but if the same person starts to feel fear when he criticizes government policies, this situation raises serious questions about the practicality of freedom of speech. can On the contrary, if institutions accept legitimate criticism, correct mistakes and provide explanations for their decisions, public trust can be strengthened. The strength of a state lies not only in its laws, institutions or administrative authority, but also in the trust that citizens place in its system. Freedom of expression should not be considered merely as a constitutional text, but should be ensured in practice. Laws should be clear, their application should be fair, the press should be free to do its work, the judiciary should be able to make independent decisions in accordance with the law and citizens should have the right to peaceful political dissent. It is the responsibility of the state to strike a balance between national security and public liberties. Likewise, citizens have a responsibility to exercise their rights and respect the law, the liberties of others, and the principles of peaceful dialogue.

Conclusion: Questioning is not a crime, it is a civil right

The democratic future of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will not be decided only by whether elections are held here or not. It will also be determined by how freely the people can question their rulers here, how freely journalists can reveal the facts, how fair space political opponents have and to what extent the state institutions are subject to the law and accountable to the people.

Democracy will be stronger if citizens have real freedom to disagree with government policies, to seek information, to raise questions and to protest peacefully. But if these rights are limited only to constitutional documents and fear or unnecessary restrictions on their use prevail in practical life, then it is natural to question the efficiency of the democratic system.

We have to understand that government and state are two different concepts. Governments change, but the state and its institutions remain to serve the people and fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. Criticizing a government does not necessarily mean opposing the country, and demanding an answer from an institution does not necessarily mean undermining the state.

In a true democracy, the rulers seek votes from the people, but the people also have the right to ask the rulers for answers.

If Pakistan is to be truly a strong Islamic democratic state, then criticism has to go beyond the tendency to treat hostility, questioning as rebellion and dissent as a crime.

Because the real beauty of democracy is not that everyone says the same thing, but that even people with different opinions can express their views without fear.

And this is the standard on which the practical performance of the democratic system of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan should be judged.

In the end, the only question is: Do we want a Pakistan where the citizens only accept the decisions of the rulers, or a Pakistan where the citizens can also question these decisions?

The answer to this question will determine the direction of our democratic future

Another main pillar of the legacy is an independent judiciary. The rights of citizens in any state can be effectively protected only when they have access to an independent and impartial forum where they can challenge state actions in the light of law. The accused got the right to a fair hearing

If citizens do not believe that they can get justice when their rights are violated, the practical significance of constitutional rights is weakened.

That is why judicial independence, transparent legal proceedings and equal application of law are considered as the basic measures of success of a democratic system.

Political Disagreement: Not Enmity, Beauty of Democracy

Another main pillar of the legacy is an independent judiciary. The rights of citizens in any state can be effectively protected only when they have access to an independent and impartial forum where those state actions are compared in the light of law.

The answer is no.

Similarly, it should also be seen whether anti-government parties can continue peaceful political activities. Can journalists freely criticize government and state policies? Is there scope to regulate public protests according to law? Do citizens have access to government information? And are the rights of those who question the performance of state institutions protected?

If the answers to these questions are not satisfactory, the mere presence of elections cannot be considered as a complete success of democracy.

Democracy is a continuous process. It is kept alive not just on election day, but every day through civil liberties, institutional transparency, the rule of law and accountability of rulers.

Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Islamic principles

While discussing the Islamic identity of Pakistan, it is also important to ask whether the principles of freedom of expression, justice, accountability and questioning the rulers are in conflict with Islamic teachings.

Pakistan has included both Islamic and democratic identities in its name and constitution. Therefore, it is quite natural to question its rulers and institutions whether they are fulfilling the requirements of justice, consultation, accountability and public rights.

If a state declares itself to be both Islamic and democratic, then it is necessary to give importance to the principles associated with these two identities in practical life.

Islamic identity should not mean that public questions are discouraged, and democratic identity should not be limited to elections.

Rather, a better state would be one where there is rule of law, citizens get justice, rulers are accountable to the people and dissent is tolerated.

Then how can Pakistan be called a democratic country?

Now we come back to the real question: if citizens face difficulties in criticizing government policies, journalists cannot carry out their duties freely, complaints of discrimination regarding political dissent and questions about the responsiveness of state institutions continue to arise, how can Pakistan be determined to be democratic?

This question cannot be answered by mere emotional slogans.

The constitutional framework of Pakistan recognizes democratic principles, elected representatives and fundamental rights. But the practicality of any system must be evaluated on the basis of its constitutional claims as well as its actual results.

If the constitution guarantees freedom of expression, practical respect for this guarantee is also necessary. If citizens have the right to access information, then government institutions must meet the requirements of transparency and accountability. If the law is equal for all, its application should not be influenced by political affiliation, social status or institutional power.

If the courts are established to deliver justice, citizens must have confidence in their independence and impartiality. If Parliament represents the people, it should play a role of free debate on important national issues and effective accountability of the government.

The true measure of democracy is the extent to which the state respects the rights of its citizens and subordinates its powers to the constitution and law.

The purpose of questioning the democratic status of Pakistan is not necessarily to negate the state. On the contrary, these questions can help improve state systems, protect citizens’ rights, and make institutions more accountable.

Loving a country does not mean supporting its every policy. An aspect of true civic responsibility is to point out wrongdoing, where it is found, with reason, evidence and amicably.

The real test of democracy

A fundamental test of democracy is not how a state treats its supporters, but how it treats its critics.

If a person appreciates the government, it is easy for him to express his views, but if the same person criticizes the government’s policies, he feels fear, then this situation raises serious questions about the practicality of freedom of expression.

If state institutions become accustomed to listening to their own praise and take critical questions as insults, the process of accountability can be undermined. Conversely, if institutions accept legitimate criticism, correct errors, and provide explanations for their decisions, public trust can be strengthened.

The strength of any state lies not only in its laws, institutions or administrative authority, but also in the trust that its citizens place in its system.

This trust is created when citizens believe that their voice will be heard, their rights will be protected and justice will be done to them.

In order to make Pakistan strong, stable and developed, it is important that freedom of expression is not merely considered as a constitutional text, but it should be ensured in practice. Laws should be clear, their use should be fair, the press should have freedom to do its work, the judiciary should be able to make independent decisions according to the law and citizens should have the right to peaceful political dissent.

It is the responsibility of the state to strike a balance between national security and public liberties. Likewise, citizens have a responsibility to exercise their rights and respect the law, the liberties of others, and the principles of peaceful dialogue.

Conclusion: Questioning is not a crime, it is a civil right

In a true democracy, the rulers seek votes from the people, but the people also have the right to ask the rulers for answers.

If Pakistan really wants to become a strong Islamic democratic state, criticism should be moved beyond hostility, questioning as rebellion, and dissent as a crime. Because the real beauty of democracy is not that everyone says the same thing, but that people with different opinions can express their views without fear. And this is the standard on which the practical performance of the democratic system of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan should be judged. In the end the question is just that. Do we want a Pakistan where citizens only accept the decisions of the rulers, or a Pakistan where citizens can question these decisions? The answer to this question will determine the direction of our democratic future.