n the midst of the wrangling over the events of the November 24 protests by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, Imran Khan has hinted at the possibility of issuing a call for a civil disobedience movement. Though the form this new phase of PTI’s struggle to find its place in the current set-up is unknown, credible hints suggest that the party might ask its supporters in the Pakistani Diaspora to curtail remittances to Pakistan. The idea is to reduce the inflow of foreign exchange through remittances, to disrupt the government’s financial calculations thereby causing it new difficulties and force it to reconsider its position vis-à-vis the PTI.

The civil disobedience idea was first proposed in 1849 by famous American intellectual Henry David Thoreau who argued that citizens of a polity owe a moral responsibility to oppose unjust laws and government actions. He argued that true allegiance belongs not to the state but to one’s conscience, asserting that individuals should prioritise ethical principles over blind obedience to authority. He critiqued governments that perpetuated injustice and urged people to passive resistance by refusing to comply with unjust laws without resorting to violence. Such refusals to compliance may include refusing to pay taxes, among others.

Civil disobedience movements have historically served as a powerful mechanism for challenging unjust laws and oppressive regimes, grounded in the moral conviction that individuals have a duty to resist inequity through nonviolent means. Since 1849, the idea of peaceful resistance against government overreach has gained global prominence. Mahatma Gandhi used the tool to highlight India’s struggle for independence from British rule. Martin Luther King Jr believed that civil disobedience was a moral obligation in the face of systemic racism, segregation and inequality. His civil rights activism in the United States highlighted its potential to confront racial segregation and systemic injustice, mobilising communities to demand equal rights through peaceful demonstrations.

Civil disobedience in Pakistan can take several forms including refusing to pay utility bills; boycotting celebrations or programmes endorsed by the government; organised walk-ins, traffic jams and roadblocks in various cities and inter-city connections; defying restrictions on assembly or media censorship; boycotting products and services of companies aligned with government’s political position and promoting alternatives; coordinating international support through international non-governmental organisations; and non-cooperation or reduced cooperation with governmental organisations.

The PTI’s civil disobedience movement could also adopt technology-driven strategies. Initiatives such as social media campaigns, hashtags, viral posts and live streams can amplify awareness and participation. Using smartphones to live-stream protests and police action could evoke global outrage and pressure the government in Pakistan. Tools like VPNs, Tor browsers and encrypted messaging apps (eg, Signal) protect activists from surveillance and retaliation. So far, Pakistani authorities have been unable to control the flow of news and narrative of the PTI inside the country or its outreach on international news channels. Historically, the PTI has been far ahead of any other political party or the government in terms of its outreach to Pakistanis within the country as well as abroad.

However, the PTI appears to be planning to hit a delicate area of the government and the state. It plans to call on the Pakistani Diaspora to minimise remittances to Pakistan. Since the PTI is the most popular political party in the Pakistani diaspora, this just as well may be successful on two fronts. One, given the precarious economic situation of the country, the government relies on foreign remittances to balance its national budget. Currently, the International Monetary Fund is monitoring and disciplining the fiscal policy of the country; any imbalance will not go unnoticed. Any noticeable disruption in the flow of foreign remittances will hurt the economy by depleting foreign currency reserves, increasing the pressure on the rupee and triggering currency depreciation and rising inflation. This could widen the deficit, forcing the government to seek additional external loans on higher interest rates and under stricter conditions, leading to austerity measures that will hurt the general population. It could freeze an already sluggish economic growth, thus failing to achieve governmental budgetary targets such as tax collection.

Given the fact that remittances directly support millions of households in Pakistan, providing funds for education, healthcare and daily expenses, any reduction will push vulnerable families into poverty, decreasing domestic demand and further straining the economy. Social media activists are suggesting that people should send money through informal channels such as hundi and hawala. If that happens, remittances might still flow into the country. While this would maintain household-level support, it will weaken the state’s regulatory oversight over financial transactions. If the proposed movement takes this direction, it will severely hurt Pakistan and its economy.

Pakistan is already facing growing challenges in attracting foreign investors. Visible non-cooperation by the Diaspora will signal political and economic instability to international observers. This will deter foreign direct investment and complicate negotiations with international financial institutions like the IMF, as it underscores a lack of faith in the country’s governance.

The unabated political polarisation in Pakistan has been a persistent impediment to the country’s economic development, creating an environment of instability and uncertainty and deterring both domestic and foreign investment. Having been cornered, the PTI may prioritise short-term political gains and partisan agenda over long-term economic gains of the country, resulting in governance paralysis and economic pressures. Pakistan is still not entirely immune to an economic collapse. The deepening divide between political stakeholders is hampering efforts to address critical issues such as fiscal deficits, inflation, unemployment and law and order.

The solution to political problems must be found in political negotiations. Critical national issues require that the stakeholders sit down to negotiate a comprehensive solution to the outstanding political questions of Pakistan. The resilient nature of democratic forces in the country must be acknowledged along with the need of an impregnable defence. The security establishment must focus on its professional responsibilities of defending the country from external and internal threats. The political forces must settle their issues through dialogue, tolerance and constitutionalism. Once political issues are resolved, economic stability may soon re-emerge.

The writer is a professor of government at Houston Community College, USA. He recently published his book The Rise of the Semi-Core: China, India, and Pakistan in the World-System. He can be approached at suklashari@gmail.com