This paper examines how social media has influenced the securitization of rule of law crisis in Pakistan, employing a convergent mixed-methods approach. Grounded in securitization theory, the study integrates qualitative document analysis of research articles, court rulings, legal frameworks, media reports, and policy documents with quantitative survey data on public perceptions of rule of law and freedom of expression. The paper explore two high-profile case studies – the “Justice for Zainab” campaign and the Noor Mukadam murder case – to illustrate how digital mobilization can both challenge and reinforce securitization dynamics. Findings indicate that social media campaigns have galvanized public pressure leading to policy responses and heightened security discourse, as in the rapid arrest and prosecution of perpetrators and calls for tougher laws. At the same time, the Pakistani state has increasingly framed online dissent as a national security threat, invoking extraordinary measures like censorship and cyber laws to curb freedom of expression. Survey results corroborate a widespread perception of unequal law enforcement, political interference in justice, and the chilling effect of digital surveillance on civic engagement. The paper argues that social media serves as a double-edged sword: it empowers citizens to demand rule-of-law accountability, yet it is also weaponized in narratives that securitize governance failures and justify authoritarian controls. The paper conclude with a discussion on how social media both challenges and reinforces securitization efforts, and call for balanced policy reforms that protect digital rights while addressing legitimate security concerns.
Imran et al. (Wed,) studied this question.