PTI rally. 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 intensive promotion as a major show of public strength and resistance, the uneven response on the ground raised fresh questions about the party’s mobilisation capacity and political direction.
While pockets of supporters did turn out, the overall impact fell short of expectations. More strikingly, much of the party’s top leadership remained absent from the scene. The protest, it seemed, came and went without delivering the political punch it had promised, according to political analysts observing the developments.
Nevertheless, the Tehreek Tahaffuz-e-Aain Pakistan (TTAP), in which PTI plays a key role, hailed the strike as successful. PTI Secretary General Sheikh Waqas Akram thanked people for their “massive participation in the shutter-down strike”.
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi echoed this assessment in a post on X, congratulating all political parties within TTAP on “a successful strike” and urging peaceful resistance to continue.
However, the government dismissed the protest as ineffective. The information minister said the public had rejected politics of confrontation, while Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz stated on X that the protest had “zero impact”.
However, for many observers, the real test of February 8 was not turnout figures or television visuals. It was whether the protest would create enough pressure to compel the government and the powers-that-be to soften their hardline stance towards PTI and its incarcerated leader, Imran Khan.
One of the protest’s stated objectives was, after all, to seek his release.
‘Emboldened govt’
Many analysts believe the protest failed to produce any tangible outcome. On the contrary, they argue that the absence of senior PTI leadership and the relatively lacklustre show may have further emboldened the government.
Senior journalist and political analyst Ehtisham Ul Haq said the protest was largely unsuccessful. Speaking to The Express Tribune, he said the shutter-down call “did not get much traction”.
“Yes, it was said that everything would come to a standstill, wheel-jams, shutter-downs, and the government forced to its knees. That did not happen, so I would not call the call a success. PTI did not gain anything concrete politically,” he added.
Observers were also surprised by how the PTI and the broader opposition handled the protest, even in their traditional stronghold, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Reports indicated that Peshawar largely remained open on Sunday despite the strike call.
While a PTI rally did take place, the absence of outspoken KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi raised eyebrows.
The party justified his absence by arguing that, as the sitting chief minister, he was not expected to attend such gatherings. However, critics pointed out that his predecessor, Ali Amin Gandapur, had previously led thousands of PTI supporters to Islamabad while serving as chief minister.
Political analyst Hassan Askari weighed in, calling February 8 “a very low-key affair, much smaller than what was anticipated or planned”.
“Lahore was busy with Basant celebrations, and the rest of Pakistan did not respond fully. I don’t expect any nationwide protests to emerge, given the number of factors that limit such mobilisation,” he added.
Responding to whether PTI gained anything politically from the protests, Ehtisham Ul Haq said the exercise mainly served as a signal to the government that protests could continue if dialogue failed.
“The larger 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 isn’t. Pressure tactics alone do not work. Internationally, this government is recognised, and the economy has shown some stabilisation. The narrative that strikes would paralyse the system and force concessions did not materialise.”
“Overall, PTI is heading into a dead end unless a constructive dialogue emerges. Discussions with the prime minister could open a path forward. The prime minister has said he wants to address matters through parliament, and if that happens, there may be some relief for PTI. Otherwise, continued agitation alone is unlikely to yield success,” he said.
On the broader political outlook, Askari noted that Pakistan’s trajectory remains difficult to predict due to multiple moving variables.
“The government claims it wants dialogue, but its actions suggest otherwise, focusing instead on keeping PTI under control,” he said.
He added that PTI itself is grappling with serious organisational and leadership challenges, with senior figures and close associates either 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 genuinely serious about engaging.”
Both Haq and Askari cautioned that PTI must recalibrate its messaging. Persistent hostility and abuse on social media, they argued, is counterproductive.
They observed that politics is about opening doors, not repeatedly banging one’s head against walls. A shift in approach could still create space for limited relief.
