Public anger on the streets is no longer a shock. Take Nepal’s recent example: a mass movement shook the entire system, forcing the government to bend after a bloody clash that left 19 dead. public demonstration in Nepal was latest of the series which earlier took place in Serbia, Mongolia, Mali, Ukraine, Bangladesh, and Kenya witnessed similar uprisings. Even the United States and Iran, despite their power and control, have not been spared from public demonstrations. From Isfahan to New York, people have marched against inflation, corruption, and questionable laws. Around the globe, protests are now a mark of public vigilance, a way of guarding democratic values and pressing governments to listen.

Earlier, large-scale demonstrations against corruption were recorded in Serbia. In Mongolia, people took to the streets against government corruption and bullying, and the prime minister had to resign. The people of Mali have been protesting since May. In Ukraine, public protests forced the government to roll back legislation. In Bangladesh, student protests turned the tables on the government. Kenya saw historic demonstrations over economic legislation. Even the United States and Iran have not been immune to public anger.

In Iran’s Isfahan, Tehran, and other cities, farmers and citizens have been protesting inflation and water shortages. In the US, over 1,400 cities recorded demonstrations against government policies this year alone.

Globally, such protests have become symbols of public vigilance, of keeping watch over democratic values and holding governments accountable.

The relationship between public and government in Pakistan is, however, quite peculiar. If we look at the past 15 years, there is hardly a single year in which protests did not dominate the political climate. The transition from Gen (r) Musharraf’s authoritarian rule to civilian democracy came with countless problems. Public sentiment towards governments was shaped not only by the lawyers’ movement for Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration, but also by political instability and violence. Suicide bombings took place, Punjab’s governor was assassinated, and unrest became constant.

During the PPP government, the PML-N spent years protesting with black armbands. Then, Dr. Tahirul Qadri arrived from Canada under the shining slogan of “saving state, not politics”, and besieged the capital from behind a bulletproof stage.

In the 2013 elections, where PML-N secured a sweeping victory and Nawaz Sharif became prime minister for the third time, protests erupted again. This time, Qadri joined hands with Imran Khan and the two appeared as “political cousins”. Their main demand was electoral reforms. But just like Qadri’s earlier protest, this joint agitation also ended with no results. One cousin, however, succeeded in establishing political profile and later emerged as an alternative force, winning a majority in 2018 and becoming prime minister.

No discussion of these protests would be complete without mentioning the 2017 Faizabad sit-in. Triggered by religious legislation, it introduced a new face of religious politics. Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan went on to secure 46% of the total religious vote in 2018, becoming the country’s largest religious party by ballot share. This movement added another front to anti-government campaigns: a minister had to resign, Nawaz Sharif had a shoe thrown at him, and Ahsan Iqbal was shot at.

Among all these, perhaps the only movement that achieved results was, Gen Z citizens may not even remember, because for them political history begins only where they start paying attention, The Panama Leaks. In 2016, allegations of corruption and secret foreign bank accounts erupted. The Panama Leaks eventually led to Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification and removal by court order.

Since then, other protests have filled the timeline: the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement’s demonstrations for civil rights and peace; opposition campaigns against PTI’s government; the 2022 no-confidence motion; Imran Khan’s ouster followed by mass protests; the events of May 9; and almost daily anti-government gatherings. Yet, none of these movements succeeded in securing public demands. Whether it was Nawaz Sharif’s judicial removal or the no-confidence motion against Imran Khan, political interests were safeguarded while public interests were sold off. The result is simple: for ordinary Pakistanis, each passing day has become worse than the last.

The question hammering in the mind is this: from Bangladesh to Nepal to the US, protests deliver quick results. But in Pakistan, protests are so frequent one might think it is an anti-government country, yet the outcome remains zero.

A closer look reveals why. Public opinion in Pakistan about governance is largely simplistic or more simply biased: if the “right person” sits in the chair, everything will be fine; if the “wrong person” sits there, everything will go wrong. This very mindset explains how PTI, despite vague and undefined political struggle, managed to capture power after two years of rallies, and continues to dominate Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

By contrast, in countries where protests succeeded, they were never about individuals. They were about systemic flaws that made people’s lives miserable. Students protested for education, farmers for their crops, workers against bad laws, citizens against national policies. That clarity of demands forced governments to retreat.

In Nepal, Gen Z youth, very simply those born around the Musharraf era, marched without any political leader, shook the system, and turned corrupt politicians into cautionary tales. In Pakistan, however, even a prime minister leading a protest ends up behind bars, whether it is Imran Khan or Nawaz Sharif.

The stark difference lies in the clarity of public opinion. In Pakistan, views about governments are always partisan. Those who found petrol at Rs70 expensive under Nawaz Sharif justified Rs150 under Imran Khan with 25 different excuses. The same people today queue at the pump for Rs270 petrol without a word. The same bias extends to perceptions about the military leadership and bureaucracy. the corrupt public opinion is problematic for the a strategic and atomic power country. people in Pakistan have yet to identify their own issues, the generation has to extend their observation with civil rights lens. workers of each sector have to be professional to develop a narrative that will turn the table towards their interest. so far superficial opinions are generating unnecessary and useless political pressure. People have to come out of the debate of Good Politician and Bad Politician.

This is why protests in Pakistan rarely succeed. They do, however, ensure one thing: political instability.