Abstract

Scholars have ignored regime type as a crucial element affecting social movement mobilization due to political opportunity structures. Even little is known about hybrid regimes and disputes. Understanding social movement's hidden or unintentional repercussions is another gap. This study uses the Pashtun Tahafuz (protection) Movement (PTM) of Pakistan to address this academic gap by studying social movements under hybrid regimes like Pakistan. The research finds that dual (emanating from both the military and political organs of the state) and haphazard repression by a hybrid regime, characterized by military dominance and limited political opportunity structure, can temporarily slow social movement mobilization but not stop it. In the long term, the movement becomes stronger and mobilizes against the state. As a result of its mobilization and advancement, a social movement under such a regime may also affect other social movements.

Key Words

Social Moment, Hybrid Regime, PTM

Introduction

The study of social movements has seen a theoretical explosion in the twenty-first century, particularly in light of the Arab Spring and academics' growing desire to analyze the origins, character, and likelihood of these movements bringing about meaningful political and social change. A significant body of scholarly works has resulted from this increase in interest and the research that followed, but most of this literature focuses on conflict in democracies and pays little attention to the variety of political opportunities that exist under various kinds of regimes and how these opportunities affect social movements and conflict (Tilly, 1983). Some academics have turned to studying social movements in authoritarian or non-democratic regimes due to the lack of political opportunity. This makes the difference in political opportunity striking. These elements' interactions are probably going to have an impact on the methods and results of social movement mobilization. However, as Valiente notes, the majority of research on conflict in non-democracies has "mainly studied transitions to democracy, policies, and protests," with no consideration given to the forms, patterns, and continuity of movement mobilization. This kind of research also ignores social movements occurring inside hybrid regimes, a significant kind of non-democracy. The unique characteristics of hybrid regimes—which combine elements of authoritarian and democratic tendencies—as well as the intricate web of institutions that support them necessitate special attention be paid to comprehending how conflict functions under these regimes and what lessons can be drawn from them. This is because hybrid regimes can have far more complex dispute patterns than democracies or authoritarian systems (Khattak, 2001).

When hybrid regimes diverge from one another in personality, the debate becomes much more fascinating. There are many different types of hybrids and methods to be a hybrid, as argued by Levitsky and Way. The little amount of research on social movements under hybrid regimes has the drawback of focusing mostly on hybrid regimes that emerged with the fall of the Soviet Union, neglecting a sizable number of hybrid regimes that are in operation across the globe. This raises doubts about these studies' generalizability. Additionally, these studies are unable to assess conflict in unusual hybrid regimes that depart from the "paradigmatic case of [Russia]." One such unusual example of a mixed system is Pakistan. What makes this analysis new is the variety of ways in which a dispute may arise given Pakistan's unique hybrid system and the kinds of consequences that could result from it, whether they are intentional or not. In addition to the deficiencies in the literature on social movements already highlighted, there is also a lack of consideration for the variety of results that social movements might produce. Giugni claims that research addressing the outcomes mostly ignores the institutional and cultural effects of the movements in favor of focusing on the political and legislative consequences. In general, social movements have been seen through a normative prism of "success" and "failure," ignoring the potentially wide-ranging effects of their actions. As Tilly and other observers correctly point out, social movements may have both overt and covert effects. Sometimes the effect of a movement may simply come from a change in public opinion, or a shift in specific standards (Ispahani, 2002)




This article uses the empirical example of Pakistan's Pashtun Tahafuz (protection) Movement (PTM), a Pashtun nonviolent human rights campaign, to narrow the theoretical gap on the topic of contention under hybrid regimes and the consequent unintended outcomes. 

First, ascertain whether a movement functioning in such a setting leaves any institutional and socio-political legacies, or has any unintended consequences. Secondly, employing the PTM case study, investigate how a hybrid regime like Pakistan influences a movement's mobilization patterns by means of inconsistent and dual repression and coercion, as well as how the movement affects the state. 




Theorizing Social Movements

Resource mobilization theory is often used in the field of social movement studies. However, it frequently overlooks the importance of varying political opportunity structures between political regimes for conflict analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to summarise the extensive research that has been done on political opportunity under different sorts of regimes. This study acknowledges the importance of regime type in the examination of social movements and conflict using direct or indirect techniques. Furthermore, it would expose the deficiencies in the existing corpus of research on conflict within hybrid regimes and the outcomes of movements within such regimes. To mitigate uncertainty and streamline the conceptual framework, we will analyze political opportunity structures using the following definition (Faletto, 1979).

The focus of 1.2 will be on the conflicts and social movements occurring inside authoritarian states. These two sections seek to examine how democratic and authoritarian states, as different types of political systems, manage conflict. They aim to explore the role of repression and the mobilization and outcomes of social movements in these types of regimes, and how this information contributes to our understanding of contention in hybrid regimes. The analysis is based on existing literature in the field. The lack of theoretical study on social movements under hybrid regimes is highlighted in Section 1.3. We would also assess the research's ability to provide insight into patterns of repression, mobilization, and outcomes of movements under hybrid regimes. This part will also enumerate the deficiencies in the existing information on the subject and illustrate the limitations of the previously conducted study in terms of generalizability. Furthermore, we will assess the study's importance in relation to its addition to the existing research on conflict within hybrid regimes (Dabashi, 2014). 

Section 1.4 will discuss how crucial it is to take regime type into account as a conditioning aspect when assessing the outcomes of social movements. It will also explore the overall impact of theoretical neglect on this research. In addition, we will examine the theory of movement outcomes in connection to different kinds of regimes and argue that the consequences of movements in hybrid regimes differ from those in other types of regimes. In this case, we would connect the discourse to our second theoretical contribution. 




The Relationship between Conflict and Social Movements in Democratic Societies 

Academics assert that democracies are more receptive to dissent compared to authoritarian and semi-authoritarian systems of government. They argue that the kind of government has a significant role in shaping social movements. This seeming leniency arises from less authoritarian regimes. Democratic institutions are seen as fostering cooperation and conciliation, reducing the probability of encountering repression when facing resistance. Multiple empirical studies measure the correlation between repression and protest in democratic societies. Davenport and Rummel argue that democracies are less prone to responding to protest and dissent with repressive measures. According to Carey, democracies exhibit a higher degree of cooperation compared to other forms of government. However, increasing dissatisfaction may lead democracies to engage in bad behavior. Beetham and others argue that repression is an essential element of democracy. They claim that it is difficult to accurately measure the relationship between dissent and repression. In an alternative study, Davenport observed that democratic principles of campaigning for elections provide a substantial obstacle for democratic leaders who want to use repression as a method of suppressing dissent. Repression is perceived as putting at danger the principles of democracy of "apathy, tolerance, interaction, and deliberation" in specific circumstances. Davenport contends in another one of his works that the lexicon of strife is essential to the regulating authority of democracy (Khattak, 2001). 

In other words, the manner and intensity with which something is expressed are significant. A movement is more resistant to coercion when it follows the limits of dissent that have been established via democratic means. Moreover, democratic governments have a lower probability of becoming trapped in the cycle of consistently implementing oppressive actions and are less susceptible to bureaucratic inertia. According to several scholars, the act of approving international human rights agreements in democratic countries establishes an external obstacle, which increases the cost for political leaders to use repressive measures. Osa and Schock argue that a key difference between democracies and non-democracies in terms of the use of repression against dissidents is the broader range of choices available to challengers in democracies, thanks to legal protections, as compared to authoritarian states. Franklin's research revealed that in a democratic system, the government's response to a challenging situation is influenced by the level of executive support and the leader's power. The regime type also plays a role in shaping important factors such as concession, toleration, and repression.

Social Movements and Protests in Authoritarian Governments

Researchers investigating social movements in authoritarian states faced challenges related to insufficient theoretical development and a prevailing theoretical bias in the field of contention studies. There has been a disproportionate focus on studying social movements in democracies, neglecting the importance of understanding the disparities in political opportunity frameworks between democracies and non-democracies or authoritarian states. Although there have been limited attempts to research conflict in oppressive environments, academics have mostly focused on analyzing the transition of oppressive administrations to egalitarianisms or periods of liberalization. Considering the limited freedom of the press and the closed character of non-democratic regimes in the cited countries, and taking into account the global backdrop, Schock discovered that repression had a distinct effect on mobilization compared to democracies. In a separate study conducted by Maryjane Osa, which focuses on political opportunities in authoritarian environments, Schock characterizes the process as a challenging and arduous one. The study reveals that in non-democratic systems, political opportunities primarily arise from the combination of several factors, including divided elites, influential allies, varying levels of repression, access to media and information, and social networks (Patel, 2004). 

These elements together influence the structure and outcome of conflict under authoritarian regimes. Valiente's study on the women's movement in Franco's Spain reveals that social movements under authoritarian regimes face a particularly hostile political environment. These regimes significantly affect the location, goals, and activities of social movements, causing them to become dormant during periods of repression. However, when conditions become more favorable, such as the end of the dictatorial period or increased international support for human rights, these movements have the potential to resurge. Osa and Huci conducted quantitative research to examine political potential in non-democratic regimes. They discovered that the likelihood of non-democratic governments being oppressive towards dissidents is quite significant. However, surprisingly, they did not find any connection between mobilization and repression. Mara Loveman characterizes activism during authoritarian times in Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina as 'high-risk collective action'. 




Hypothetical Deficiency: Examining Social Movements and Conflict under Hybrid Regimes 

The term "theoretical poverty" refers to the lack of scholarly understanding of social movements and disputes under hybrid regimes. This lack of understanding is a key focus of this work. The section will examine the existing literature as well as any literature tangentially connected to the issue. As mentioned in the previous introduction, hybridism in their analysis only superficially considers, focusing on the surface level without fully understanding the complexities involved in contentious activities within different hybrid regimes. Tocqueville was among the early pioneers in predicting patterns of protest in political systems that have both open and closed elements. They assert that under hybrid regimes, conflict leads to "polarization and unpredictable outcomes," however they do not provide much insight into the mechanisms and reasons behind this phenomenon. Some argue that there is a higher incidence of murder in the center. Graeme Robertson's study on the policymaking of dissent under hybrid regimes provides a valuable contribution to the little research in this area, going beyond the conventional analysis based on statements. According to Robertson, protest patterns under hybrid regimes are influenced by three main factors: organizational ecology, state mobilization techniques, and elite competitiveness. 

Robertson asserts in his research on strike patterns and labor organizations in hybrid regimes that the occurrence of strikes in such regimes is contingent upon the political and economic resources available in the area. However, applying similar analyses to other hybrid circumstances where Russia is not the primary reason for defining hybrid regimes might be a conceptual overreach. Using a perspective, Brian Fong examines the state-society conflict in Hong Kong's hybrid regime and argues that the governance problem is due to the government's inability to address the concerns of civil society. The text does not include any information about the mobilization patterns of civil society or the potential instruments of oppression, additional studies on democracies and their increased likelihood of causing civil war and conflict may provide insight into the literature relevant to our unique case in Pakistan. 




Theoretical Disregard: The Consequences of Social Movements in All Forms of Political Systems

It has been noted by scholars that the results and implications of movements have been neglected in the social movement's literature. An often cited explanation for the lack of attention to challenges that researchers encounter when attempting to measure these results. Measuring both internal and external movement results has proven to be particularly challenging. Most of the extant research primarily focuses on measuring the prominent effects of the movement, such as political results. These outcomes include the movement's ability to change or overthrow regimes, as well as its role in promoting democratization inside a certain regime. However, we believe that the influence of regime type as a conditioning factor should be taken into account, even if it was not a significant variable in the existing research.

In hybrid regimes such as Pakistan, where there is unpredictable and double suppression and compulsion, the presence of rebellious expressions within the state could be amplified. This could potentially have a ripple effect on other movements, leading to their activation, following the breakthrough made by an influential figure in the political arena. These unintended consequences may be ascribed to social movements under a hybrid regime, but they are not directly linked to the demands of the movements. In this section, we have identified a significant deficiency in the existing literature on the outcomes of social movements. Subsequently, the text proceeds to examine the current hybrid system and its distinctive characteristics. Furthermore, it would illustrate how the ongoing institutional imbalance in the contemporary state may impact the trajectory of a social movement via random, contradictory, and innovative methods of coercion using different state apparatuses, and shape the results of social movements. This is especially true when a movement like the PTM aims to tackle the unrestrained utilization of military force inside the country, advocating for, among other demands, an inquiry into human rights transgressions perpetrated by security personnel against ethnic Pashtuns during the War on Terror (WOT)

The Establishment of a Praetorian Organisation and its Origin

Following the conclusion of the Cold War, some governments emerged that had characteristics of both democracy and totalitarianism, without entirely embodying either system. So far, many scholars have tried to understand these transitional occurrences. Some see them as semi-democratic, competitive, authoritarian, and hybrid regimes, while others perceive them as ambiguous governments. Nevertheless, the proliferation of these various subcategories of non-democratic systems and the constant development of new terminology to classify them are not enough to fully comprehend every instance, especially when certain post-colonial nuances fall beyond the scope of our conceptual framework. In this section, we will examine the genesis and building of a particular scenario. From the beginning, the newly established Pakistani state was under the control of the military, rather than the weak political elite, based on the ideas of the Two-Nation theory. In this case, the praetorian phenomenon of the country has some resemblance to that of other developing or post-colonial states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Huntington also examines the process by which certain post-colonial regimes underwent modernization via their military institutions, resulting in the rise of these armies as influential political entities inside their own states. Several scholars argue that the Pakistani military was destined to have a prominent and sophisticated involvement in the country's politics since it had a presence even before the establishment of the nation. This was made possible due to the fact that Punjab, one of the four provinces, was already a semi-military state and acted as the center of power for the newly formed state. 

The first military coup took place in 1958 and lasted until 1969. After the first democratic elections in 1970, a civilian government was formed and stayed in power until 1977. The period from 1971 to 1977 in Pakistan's political history, under the leadership of Z.A. Bhutto, is acknowledged as the only instance in which a civilian government successfully maintained control over the military (Wallerstiene, 2006). The 1971 civil war and subsequent partition of the country's East Wing, leading to the creation of Bangladesh and the temporary withdrawal of the military, may be partially attributed to the current scenario. Nevertheless, the military swiftly regained its political power with a second coup that dismantled the democratic constitution in 1978, ushering in a subsequent era of military-driven Islamization of the country that lasted until 1988. In the 1990s, a series of elected civilian governments were overthrown by the President of the country under military supervision, using certain constitutional procedures. These governments were removed on the basis of allegations of "corruption." Another coup took place in 1999 and lasted until 2008. The next section will examine the country's nascent democracy, which started to form in 2008, along with the many institutional challenges associated with living in a diverse state. 




The Current Coexistence of Different Elements within the State and its Peculiarities

As previously discussed, the implementation of the praetorian system at the nation's inception enabled the development of political institutions under military oversight and paved the way for the military's institutionalized involvement in subsequent years. Over the course of its seventy-two-year existence as a sovereign state, Pakistan has mostly been under the rule of military rulers, with occasional intervals of democratic administration under military supervision. The country has achieved the feat of completing two successive five-year periods of democratic rule without any military intervention in the most recent election. This victory marks the continuation of the democratic transition that started in 2008. Some argue that the military's declining inclination for complete dominance, as long as it benefits business interests and maintains its "role in foreign policy, particularly regarding India and the United States," has created space for the country's emerging democracy, at least in terms of elections (Harvey, 2012). 

Ayesha Siddiqa uses “hexa-fold” analysis to understand the progression of civil-military interactions in Pakistan throughout history. The author sees three main clusters and functions: civilian dominance in both authoritarian and democratic regimes; military control as a ruler, arbiter, or parent-guardian; and warlordism. One may argue that the military has assumed a caretaker role in contemporary times. Elections are tolerated, but they are strategically manipulated to favor the ruling party by suppressing opposition and avoiding involvement in political affairs. The Pakistan Movement for Justice, or Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), is a center-right populist political party headed by former cricket player Imran Khan. Following its triumph in the 2018 election, it took office. The PTI's rise to power is strongly supported by substantial evidence suggesting military support, following a highly controversial election. The present portrayal of Pakistan's hybrid administration may give the impression that the country has a greater inclination towards electoral dictatorship (Faletto, 1979).

A Democratic Front for a Very Authoritarian Regime

It is important to note that certain hybrid regimes, which Denk and Silander describe as having varying levels of institutional variation in political regimes, should not be disregarded as merely weakened forms of government. The Pashtun resistance to these acts of violence was gradually reinforced by the conflicting and contentious involvement of the military in the War on Terror (WOT) following the events of 9/11. This role, as we discussed earlier, had a proportional effect on the ethnic Pashtun population residing in the regions where military operations were being conducted. One additional aspect that motivated the resistance forces was the continued existence of laws from the colonial era, such as the FCR, in the poor region of FATA. These laws granted the security forces unlimited immunity and deprived the local population of any rights. The Mehsud Tahafuz (protection) group (MTM) was the pioneering student-led movement to bring attention to the predicament of those compelled to leave their residences in South Waziristan due to military operations. During that period, there were speculations circulating about a landmine detonation in FATA that resulted in the death of more than 80 children. As a result, MTM organized a protest in Islamabad, the capital of the country. Subsequently, the Organisation for the Protection of Pashtuns (MTM) transformed into the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) and gained prominence as a major nationwide organization following the unlawful killing of Naqeeb Ullah Masood, a Pashtun male model, in Karachi on January 13, 2018. The recently established PTM movement organized a procession from Pashtun regions to Islamabad, where they conducted a 10-day protest and demanded the liberation of Naqibullah and the FATA populace. The death of Naqibullah, which acted as a spark for the campaign, also brought attention to other issues faced by the population of FATA, such as the War on Terror in the region, which had previously been mostly ignored by the media. Afterward, the movement organized several marches and processions in various towns around the country. The movement, inspired by the nonviolent actions of Pashtun leader Badshah Khan, has several key demands. These include the removal of land mines that were placed by the military during the War on Terror, which are currently obstructing the movement of the local population. Another demand is to put an end to the ethnic profiling of Pashtuns as "terrorists," which often results in their mistaken association with the Taliban and subsequent extrajudicial killings. Additionally, the movement seeks the establishment of a judicial commission to investigate the human rights violations that Pashtuns have suffered during the War on Terror (Sousa Santos, 2006). 

While Badshah Khan's past advocacy for peaceful Pashtun nationalism was linked to the PTM, the PTM itself distinguishes itself from these earlier versions in several aspects and has distinct attributes. Understanding and highlighting these unique attributes is crucial since they are directly linked to PTM's association with other, smaller movements in the country. The emergence of PTM and the escalating oppression they have encountered seem to have triggered these movements. Kakar argues that the key difference between the PTM and previous Pashtun nationalist movements lies in the fact that a significant portion of the PTM's top leadership hails from the lower middle class and originates from FATA, a region that has historically been marginalized and excluded from Pashtun political affairs. In contrast to previous and current mainstream Pashtun ethnic entrepreneurs, the PTM does not idealize a glorious historical era, fantasies about a future nation, or engage in discussions about secession (Jafri, 2021). 

The movement's resistance and struggle are rooted in the repugnant experiences of the people throughout the war, which were deliberately disregarded by the mainstream media and other investigative research agencies. The movement, whose demands are legally protected by the Pakistani constitution, advocates for an improved quality of life for Pashtuns in their native country, who have historically faced marginalization and have been subjected to the dehumanizing effects of violence, sometimes referred to as "collateral damage" and other similar words. The hesitation of mainstream Pashtun businesses to fully adopt PTM is partly due to their opposition to restricting their war to secession and other outdated nationalist rhetoric. Moreover, the movement's extreme language links the process of "securitization" and "Talibanization" in the Pashtun area to the security forces' ill-conceived strategies used during the War on Terror. This assertion has never been spoken with such genuineness and transparency by mainstream Pashtun nationalists or by any political entity in the country in recent decades (Shah, 2020).

The user expressed concern about the dominance of the military in the Pashtun region and raised questions about their unchallenged influence in the nation's political matters, especially considering the long-standing history of this situation. As a result, the movement sometimes faced extreme persecution, including intimidation, arrests, assassinations, and complete limitation of its activities by the country's mainstream and national media. Instances of repression may escalate to unprecedented levels, as shown in North Waziristan when the military resorted to shooting protestors. Occasionally, the prominent figures and other members of the movement have been apprehended based on accusations of "criminal conspiracy and sedition” and "conspiracy to overthrow the government"(1, but they have subsequently been released. The restrictions in issue are colonial legislation that continues to be extensively used nationwide to suppress dissenting voices. The Praetorian dictatorship left behind a record of using sedition laws to punish politically active persons in the country. These individuals were labeled as "foreign agents" funded by India and other external powers aiming to destroy national unity (Akhtar, 2020). The PTM had a similar conclusion. The movement has faced allegations of working on behalf of foreign adversaries on many occasions by the country's intelligence agencies and other propaganda platforms that endorse the official account. One hundred twenty-six Eric Voegelin's insights on the state's use of repression as a political strategy, achieved via the marginalization of dissenting voices and its camouflage as a threat to national security, prove to be valuable. The PTM has been depicted as an external adversary of the state, with violence being justified against it by depicting it as a foreign entity. In a few cases, it has been allowed to directly challenge and express opposition, even in the major urban areas of Punjab, which are considered the stronghold or core of the military (Akhtar, 2020). 

In our view, this unpredictable, inconsistent, and dual kind of repression is a result of the regime's hybrid nature, which leads to random forms of mobilization. As previously discussed in section 2.3, the distinctive characteristic of this kind of repression in a hybrid regime context is its divergence from the oppression seen in both completely authoritarian regimes and democracies. In this scenario, there is a situation of dual oppression arising from both military and civilian institutions. Primarily sourced from the military due to the nature of the dictatorship and the military's capacity to dominate civilian institutions, additionally, this distinctive movement is specifically focused on the military, which falls under its "reserved domains." However, the civil government, despite its inability to fully crush a movement, serves to legitimize this persecution by using colonial laws such as "sedition" in the name of democracy. The democratic facade must be maintained, allowing for little dissent.

We argue that the combination of these two forms of oppression on a social movement is more intense than the suppression experienced under dictatorships or in democracies since it forces the movement to temporarily become inactive but does not totally eradicate it. However, in the face of intricate forms of government repression, we see a significantly heightened level of organization and resistance against the state via the combined influence of many social movements and the subsequent spread of their effects. The next section will discuss the role of PTM as a catalyst for smaller movements at a national level. 

In section 2, we created the framework and used it to illustrate the organizational structure of the Pakistani state. This provided us with insight into the essence of the government, marked by the military's complete control over the political apparatus. It is desirable for the country's political leaders to take the lead in opposing the current institutional structure in order to create a different future. However, as evidenced in section 2 and other instances, mainstream political parties mostly support or accept the existing system in order to protect the regime, and therefore share responsibility for the weak and inadequate "democratic" environment. Kriesi and Wisler argue that the current political environment is characterized by a lack of strong political parties, creating a void. In Pakistan, the PTM has emerged as a viable alternative force that has effectively taken advantage of this vacuum. Just a few years ago, it seemed unlikely that the movement, which we considered unconventional in its language, could anticipate a different location for expressing disagreement inside the country (Akhtar, 2020). 

They alleviated concerns over some issues and brought attention to others that were previously considered taboo to debate within the constraints of a partially democratic government. One of the problems that arose was the issue of "missing persons." Enforced disappearances originated as a military strategy, first used as part of the military's counterterrorism efforts against terrorists. However, it was subsequently utilized by the military as a method to suppress political dissent. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), more than 4000 individuals have been officially labeled as "missing" based on accusations of involvement in "terrorism." Previously, the media and other organizations that reported on these "missing" persons underwent their own relocation. Several Left and other civil society groups experienced fear of intimidation and displacement, which prevented them from freely expressing their concerns. This was partially attributed to the fragmented and inactive Left opposition in the nation. The People's Party (PPP) in Pakistan is the only notable political party that can be classified as left-wing. However, it has a historical record of sometimes yielding to the doctrines of the military establishment, which continues to persist even now. Another factor is the cynicism of the left towards the War on Terror. PTM has brought attention to these issues, especially in urban areas where censorship and the suppression of political dissent are more common than in rural areas. This has allowed smaller, progressive youth groups to address a wider range of issues, including women's rights, the restoration of student unions, and labor unions, among other topics. The PTM functioned as a "dual dialectic movement," inadvertently influencing smaller progressive groups that aimed to reinterpret the country's citizenship rights and, more generally, advocate for the elimination of the state's hybrid nature, while facing official censorship. 

Conclusion

The current body of research on social movements fails to examine the influence of regime type as a determining element in understanding the functioning of social movements across various political systems. It has not gotten enough attention to comprehend how various hybrid regimes and social movements interact. The goal of this endeavor was to close the significant theoretical gap in our knowledge of social movements and regimes kinds. This study focuses on the Pashtun Tahafuz (protection) campaign (PTM), a human rights campaign led by the Pashtun community in western Pakistan. Unlike the post-Soviet hybrid regimes that have been the focus of previous social movement research, Pakistan has a unique institutional and political opportunity structure, making it unique in the context of understanding conflict dynamics. How can a hybrid government such as Pakistan crush a social movement like the PTM? What influence do the repression patterns have on movement mobilization and advancement, and are they consistent or intricate? Is there a movement that can survive under these conditions? What effects do these motions have on other movements, whether on purpose or accidentally? These and other similar problems make up the core of this study. 

The study proposed that the political opportunity structure of a hybrid regime, like Pakistan, where the military holds a dominant role, results in the simultaneous and indiscriminate repression of a popular movement. The word "dual" refers to the repression that the movement experiences as a consequence of resistance from both the military and civilian sectors of the government.

The research discovered that the simultaneous suppression is expected to impact the organization and activation of the movement in the near future, maybe resulting in a state of temporary suspension, although it is improbable to completely eradicate the movement. In the long term, the movement may encounter heightened mobilization and opposition towards the state. The movement's mobilization and growth may inadvertently serve as a trigger for other analogous movements around the nation. PTM's effect can be connected to the comeback of the progressive group among students as well as the rebirth of previously inactive Left-wing organizations. PTM emerged as a pioneering force in Pakistan's volatile democratic past, a period characterized by military dictatorship, inspiring other oppressed groups to stand out for their own rights. The study also found that, in addition to using conventional methods of repression to crush dissent, a hybrid dictatorship like Pakistan employs contemporary conspiratorial tactics to obstruct the development of social movements and damage their reputation.  

References

• Akhtar, A. S. (2020). The War of Terror in Praetorian Pakistan: The Emergence and Struggle of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement. Sage Journal, 516-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2020.1809008
• Dabashi, H. (2014). The Arab Spring: The End of Postcolonialism. London: Zed books.
• Faletto, F. A. (1979). ‘After the Third World: History, Destiny and the Fate of Third Worldism. Third World Quarterly https://doi.org/10.1080/0143659042000185318
• Harvey, N. (2012). The Chiapas Rebellion: The Struggle for Land and Democracy. Durham: Durham University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822398301
• Ispahani, M. (2002). The Cauldron. The New Republic, 31-38.
• Jafri, Q. (2021). The Pashtun Protection Movement (PTM) in Pakistan. Icnc Special Report Series.
• Khattak, B. A. (2001). “Power Configurations in Public and Private Arenas: The Women’s. Karachi: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-005-0009-z
• Patel, R. A. (2004). Third Worldism and the Lineages of Global. Third World Quarterly, 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143659042000185426
• Shah, A. R. (2020). The rise of the Pashtun protection movement (ptm): polemics and conspiracy theories. Sage Journal, 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2020.1752568
• Sousa Santos, B. (2006). The rise of the global left: the World Social Forum and beyond. London: Zed. London: Zed.
• illy, C. (1983). A social movement consists of a sustained challenge to powerholders in the name of a population living under the jurisdiction of those powerholders by means of repeated public displays of that population's numbers, commitment, unity, and worthiness’,. Barkley University of Sociology. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035464
• Wallerstiene, I. (2006). The Social World of Revolution social moment and world system. Monthly Review Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/657747