M B Naqvi

The writer is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist

mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

The first was Air Marshal Asghar Khan, a politician of unimpeachable integrity, who vouchsafed that President Pervez Musharraf will hold elections to National and Provincial Assemblies by the due date and that he will seek confirmation or re-election from the Assemblies in November next year. The bearer of second set of gifts was Syed Anwar Mahmoud, the Information Secretary. Said he that the President will promulgate as many as four laws to regulate the media before Eid.

While one cannot but welcome the prospect of elections by the date, provided they are truly free and well-prepared, Anwar's Eid gifts are more questionable. No one need question his bonafides; Musharraf government has so far conducted itself admirably vis-a-vis the media, especially the press. And it has been rewarded thereby. That has been, so far, its only plus point for the outside world; free press and media have been specially beneficial to the General himself; it was the credibility of the uncensored give and take of his famous breakfast at Agra that gave him the flattering image of being straight-talking and straight-dealing man. One hopes he and his government will remember that.

To establish the credibility of the polls in the eyes of the Pakistanis themselves and the rest of the world, a lot will have to be done by the General himself. He has to find a Chief Election Commissioner with adequate power and experience for being able to ensure that sections of bureaucracy are not able to manipulate the processes of polling, counting and announcing to produce Zia-like "positive results". Personality of the CEC matters. Look at the example of Mr Seshan as the CEC of India; he changed the very concept of a CEC's powers. He was not a retired judge. He could put the powerful Indian bureaucracy where it belonged: actually subservient to the CEC and through him to the people for the duration. His bureaucratic background - he was a Secretary to GoI - enabled him to conduct the polls in a free as well as orderly manner and implemented many a necessary reform that had seemed too difficult to effect. We too may need someone with ample bureaucratic experience, proven integrity and tact such as the former Vice Chancellor of Quaid-e-Azam University who rid the institution of many ills of factionalism and politics.

The steps that are vital - increasing the number of seats in each Assembly, delimitation of constituencies and up to date electoral rolls, lowering the voting age, abolishing the separate electorate etc - need to be taken now. In some cases intricate dovetailing of processes will have to be done if the deadline has to be met by October next. But these steps presuppose prior changes in the constitution; the procedure and credibility of the changes being as important as the merits of the change itself. Time is of the essence and its seems the General has in fact fallen behind his own schedule.

In the aftermath of the War in Afghanistan Musharraf government has to face three major domestic crises, both legacies of so many previous governments under the influence of his own institution, the Army: the delayed reactions to the decimation of Taliban power in Afghanistan. Secondly, the focus of international Coalition against Terror is likely to shift from Taliban to Kashmir. That is likely to create an even bigger Crisis for the Army regime. Thirdly, regularisation of his confirmation as the Eighth Amendment kind of President, together with constitutional amendments' merits and procedure, are also sure to cause controversy. How does it propose to cope with these crises?

Which is where the gifts borne by Anwar Mahmoud come in. That the Information Ministry, with its history and the mind set created by long experience of a basically non-democratic institution, has felt rather naked without power-conferring laws during the post-Junejo period is known. That it has been hankering after new laws is also known. How many manoeuvres on codes of conduct for Journalists, a Press Council of many shapes and powers and laws to "regulate" the media it has not been making is on record.

It is hard to see why "regulation" of the media is thought necessary. Take the case of the press, perhaps the most important medium for opinion-making. There is supposedly no one to issue the Declarations for new publications. While a new authority - Nazims? - can easily be found, the question is why should it be necessary? What functions does a Declaration perform? There can be many ways to count the periodicals. It is a relic of an ugly past. President Musharraf now enjoys full US support. Is it the reason why he needs more laws for the media?

At any rate, tampering with the freedom of the press - if anyone is thinking of it - can be dangerous for a non-democratic ruler - yes, especially for him. Pakistan press has remained controlled and regimented for many decades. What did it, and the rigidly controlled electronic media, do for the dictators? Did Ayub Khan remain in power because of the media control? Did this control enable him to rule one day longer than what the next dictator in line permitted? Could Yahya Khan stay longer than the end of the tacit support of other generals? Similarly no civilian leader could rely on media support to last his or her full term simply because of media support. A regimented media is no help to any ruler, least of all to dictators. They get punished for inevitably believing their own lies.

As for there being too many satellite channels, most of them hostile to Pakistan, the bureaucracy sees the urgent need for regulating them. It is going to be a losing battle if anyone thinks he can make it impossible for a channel to be received here. The first casualty of the effort will be to discredit the local channels as so many propaganda outlets; people will hanker after BBC and CNN and many in the process swallow their slants and implicit prejudices. While there might be a case of simple regulation to avoid confusion in wavelengths and for other technological reasons. But none for favouring this and disfavouring of that channel. Let the people choose what they want to hear or see.

Pakistani journalists have done without a written code of conduct or ethics or a government-approved Press Council all these years. They are none the worse for it. Their conduct by professional standards has been satisfactory, not counting the linguistic competence in the English language press. A specific body with some authority, with or even without government participation, runs the risk of meddling by the government. Why should it be allowed to do so? More so in times of intense political controversies in which the government may be a party.

There are sure to be major controversies in near future, apart from Taliban and extremism, on the Kashmir policy and on the way Mr Musharraf proposes to remain an all-powerful President, not to mention the merits of constitutional amendments. Buoyed by American support, is Mr Musharraf trying to copy the methodology through which other military strongmen stayed in power for a decade? Times change. Old ways may no longer help. He would be well advised to reflect on his two years plus and analyse how much he has gained from a free press and from mere intimations of a glasnost in the PTV through a relatively free discussion of national issues. He would be well advised to leave the well alone.