"The media's power is frail. Without the people's support, it can be shut off with the ease of turning a light switch."
– Corazon Aquino
Media that plays into the hands of the establishment, wreaks havoc in the name of ‘national interest’ and fails to give the real picture ends upwith a recipe for disaster. And it cuts both ways – creating a blatant sense of superiority of power on the one hand and causing despondency and loss of faith in the system on the other. But when the freedom of the press is curbed on the pretext of safeguarding ‘national interest’, it is usually another way offurthering tyranny. Unfortunately, since the creation of Pakistan, the media in the country has been misused, manipulated and subverted on numerous occasions, regime after regime, government after government – all in the name of ‘national interest’.
I often wonder what constitutes this ‘national interest’. Is it the realization of the dreams of a chosen few who are enjoying the fruits of power or the wishes and aspirations of the masses struggling to maketheir ends meet? Is highlighting corruption and nepotism in the establishment not in ‘national interest’? Is protecting those accused of heinous crimes in ‘national interest’? Is twisting facts to suit a political party in ‘national interest’? The jury may be out on what are the parameters defining the real role of the media but it is critical to realize that ‘national interest’ cannot be arbitrarily used as a tool to silence the voice of reason. More importantly, if the message is bad, you cannot shoot the messenger.
The recent government decision imposing restrictions on live transmission is a regressive step that would only make matters worse for the civil society in Pakistan. Efforts are being made to justify this move by citing the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) regulations. But if the media has to take permission before telecasting live, then what happens to emergency situations and in matters of public interest? Imagine the US media being under such a ban when 9/11 was happening. Does it make any sense for the government to disallow going live when pitched battles are taking place on the streets? Another charge against the media is that it exaggerates and sensationalises issues. If the OJ Simpson case was a classic example of exaggeration and sensationalism by the media, the media in Pakistan should takeconsolation from the fact that it has never stretched boundaries.
I agree that the Pakistani army should not be made a subject of ridicule and contempt, but what happens if an army chief dons the garb of a politician and is hell-bent onenjoying the fruits of power on both counts? Isn’t that adding fuel to the fire? President Musharraf has always proclaimed that he has championed the cause of the media. He never fails to take credit for the freedom of the press in today’s Pakistan. What he forgets is that any independence is gained and not granted and the media in Pakistan has snatched independence from the jaws of autocracy. The logic sounds as convoluted as the British claiming to grant independence to Pakistan as opposed to Pakistan havingearned it. And even if such a thing as media freedom exists in the country, why do we hear cases of cable blackouts? Which law of the country allows such blanket bans?
If the media has taken the responsibility of highlighting issues in the larger interest of the society, it is only performing its duty. If the media chooses to debate subjects that would define the future of the nation and succeeds in building consensus between different segments of the society, it is only helping the establishment achieve an objective that would otherwise have been difficult to accomplish. On hindsight, if issues of balance of power, strengthening of democratic institutions and safeguarding of civil rights bodies had been discussed without malice by the media decades earlier, things would not have come to such a pass today.
Live transmissions have not changed the course of history and I do not know what can be achieved by banning them. When, during the French revolution, thousands of people poured into the streets of Europe and elsewhere against monarchies, aristocracies andCatholic clergy, they did not count upon live transmissions to make their voices heard. There was no live transmission when the body of Italian dictator Mussolini was dragged on to the streets and hung upside down on meat hooks. When Shah of Iran was bluffed by his own followers about his popularity among the masses, live transmission was not a factor. When pro-Khomeini revolutionary supporters shouted hate slogans against the Shah and the king’s advisors told him ‘all is well’, there was no live transmission going on. Even in Pakistan, when thousands marched on the streets against Ayub Khan, no live transmission was taking place. Was live transmission going on when the state media was celebrating Pakistan’s victory in Bangladesh while Gen. A.K. Niazi was surrendering to the Indian Army?
The truth is that whenever President Musharraf has been asked about democracy in Pakistan, he has always maintained that the freedom of the press is the vital sign of a free and democratic country. What will now be his answer with this most recent attack on the freedom of the press? Can he still claim that the media is free in Pakistan?
We must learn from the pages of history how spreading lies through the media in the name of ‘national interest’ can be counter-productive. Our country has paid a heavy price for allowing propagandist elements to take things in their own hands. The narration of Zulm Ki Daastaan (tales of torture) on national television after the ouster of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is a case in point. This was followed by a period in whichjihad in Afghanistan, during the Zia regime, was passed on as being in ‘national interest’. Things have not been very different even during democratic governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. They indulged in insolent behaviour so much so that insulting each other over state media became matters of ‘national interest’.
Traditionally, whenever military regimes have gone out with a vengeance trying to clip the wings of their opponents, the results have always been calamitous as is happening in today’s Pakistan. The failure to debate implications of successive federal budgets with high defence allocations in the past meant that more important areas such as health and education suffered owing tolack of resources. The result of those policies are out in the open. If only the media was allowed to play its rightful role during those eventful decades, it would have criticised such a policy and things would have been vastly different today. We would certainly have had a better pen-to-missile ratio.
Like politics, media too has neither permanent friends nor enemies. Western media declared General Pervez Musharraf as the greatest ally in its war on terror in the aftermath of 9/11. Today, the same media is asking Musharraf to do more, raising questions about the US administration’s backing of the government in Islamabad. That only goes to show that the so-called ‘national interest’ can be a very myopic view of the reality and can induce governments to take wrong decisions.
The argument being used to justify media gag is that the media – in the US and in other developed countries – stands behind the government in hours of need. While the basic premise of this contention is inaccurate, if not flawed, the hazards of such an approach has also translated into disastrous foreign policy decisions. The American media had an important role to play in the days leading up to Iraq war and if it had not largely toed the government line, the Bush administration may have been spared of the ignominy it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Isn’t this a classic example of how bulldozing of the media in the name of ‘national interest’ can lead to disastrous consequences and tarnish the country’s image across the world as has happened in the case of the US?
In Pakistan, successive governments have found different, and sometimes innovative, ways of imposing restrictions on the media. Even though it would be wrong to suggest that the media is above board and should be beyond scrutiny, this judgement should largely be left to the viewing public instead of letting the establishment become the final arbiter. Two examples are worthy of mention. Doha-based Al Jazeera television, despite taking on totalitarian regimes and exposing dictators, has gained overwhelming support from the audience. It has succeeded in holding a mirror to the society, something that is in every society’s long-term interest. In India, the fourth estate has worked as crusaders of justice and has helped expose corruption at high offices, empowering the masses in the process.
The media may lose this latest war to the powers that be but it will at least be known to have put up a fight, in the larger interest of the society. If media is not performing its role in an unbiased and objective manner, it will only lose respect from those who matter most – the people ofthe Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Advertisement
Dr Shahid Masood is a political analyst from Pakistan.
