THESE days Pakistan seems to be one of the most ‘happening’ places in the world. The winds of change have blown back democracy and it is hoped that other positive changes will also take place. A lot of the positive change can be attributed to the media. Coverage of civil society’s resistance and activities of political parties is what created sufficient hype which then led to the change we currently see in Pakistan.
There are many who believe that the media owes its freedom to President Musharraf who expanded the media while he wore the two hats of the president and the army chief. It was during his tenure that the number of television and radio channels was increased. Of course the intention was not to have an independent media but to have television and radio channels and newspapers galore that could help create an alternative image of the country abroad. The first chance the media gave to Musharraf in terms of deciding how far he wanted the media to act freely, he cracked down and started to throttle it.
What the president did not realise was that the media’s expansion took place in a new age in which it was not really possible to throttle information. Technology has really changed the face of the media. If anyone decides to crack down on television channels there is always the internet which will keep these channels alive. True, the news will not reach the masses but it will reach the critical communities of people or civil society. Most television channels, especially those popular with the common man, were shut down but some could still be viewed over the internet. Expatriate Pakistanis definitely had access to news, some of which kept filtering into the country through personal contacts.
The internet has proved to be a remarkable technology that is difficult to beat. A host of cyber discussion groups and blogs popped up during the troubled times, keeping a critical part of society connected. Participants of the movement launched by lawyers and civil society remained linked through chat groups, constantly providing and sharing information and even holding discussions on various issues.
Given that web access is limited in Pakistan due to lack of education, technology and monetary wherewithal, it is difficult for the internet to have an impact on the masses. However, the important point is that new technologies make it difficult for any government to completely stop all flow of information. This cannot be done even in Iran and China. You block one site and another one pops up. It is almost like what happens with jihadi groups. You close one and it reopens under another name.
Such a media cannot be controlled through the ISPR or men whose core training is in ordering men in a battlefield. This media cannot be directed even through the power of an iron fist. There is now little tolerance for hooliganism. As such it is good to hear that the new government may be appointing someone who knows how to engage the media and has been a part of it. It is hoped that the new administration also develops a big heart and tolerates criticism. Unfortunately, there are a few who get critical of those with divergent points of view.
A critical analysis of a government denotes the amount of interest people are taking in the political process. In any case, it is not necessary for people to not criticise and agree with every policy. A wise government will always listen to all views and select ideas which could help it. No one should expect his or her ideas to be taken lock, stock and barrel.
But technology is not the only new development as far as Pakistan’s media is concerned. There are other developments as well such as a growth in the number of establishment agents who comfortably mingle with the rest of the crowd. In fact, gone are the days when the politically liberal and progressive crowd had the comfort of operating in relative isolation. The old dictatorships used crude methods such as using state-owned television channels or newspapers for propaganda. It was easy to spot people who were on the government’s payroll.
Now there are journalists who might criticise certain policies of the state but support others. Such a ploy is used to build the credibility of individuals and this helps in communicating with the larger world. The world of Pakistani media is quite fragmented. The establishment has actively cultivated certain people and put them in key places. These individuals will always work for the establishment and can remain silent like the ‘sleeper’ cells of the jihadis, which means they could keep mum during a critical time and then open fire when the establishment wants them to.
The downside of technological expansion is that the agents of the establishment can also reach out to people and divide public opinion on a key issue. These individuals use the internet or other facilities to propagate a certain perspective which might not necessarily be true but can convert readers, listeners and viewers to a particular opinion. The past few years have seen an increase in the number of people in the media on the payroll of different intelligence agencies. The problem here is not of pro-establishment views but of using state resources to give certain people a credibility which is then used to destabilise the political process or society at large.
The process of installing agents becomes easier in a government that lacks transparency and has complete control over information. The government can regulate distribution of information and use this tool to build the credibility of certain individuals versus others.
This approach has of course hurt the country in the long run. Since dissemination of information is controlled, the more capable people may be denied the chance to access information and analyse it. The result is mediocrity and substandard analyses which are never in the country’s interest.
The more important issue for the new government to grapple with is to provide more comfortable access to information. Since there are multiple channels of information, it is not difficult to engage in data or information mining. However, the level of accessibility and friendliness of the government will always result in better analysis. I remember a brief chat with a former DG ISPR on some issue relating to gunfire in the Frontier province. He tried to distract me by suggesting that nothing had happened and it was part of the tribal culture to use guns on any occasion. Little did he know that given multiple sources of information I would get my info but his answer would put the government in bad light.
It would help the new regime to make rules regarding access to information. This will certainly improve transparency and build confidence amongst the general public. In the longer term this will solve the problem of agents of the establishment that lie in wait for the regime to make a mistake so they can then launch their propaganda. A greater friendship with the media will always help.
The writer is an independent strategic and
political analyst.
ayesha.ibd@gmail.com
Courtesy: Daily Dawn, 28/3/2008
Loading ...
Recent Comments