The myth of freedom
Ghazi Salahuddin
During those treacherous times of Gen Zia's martial law, when pre-publication censorship was imposed on the press, I had, in a lighter vein, developed a standard response to questions about what was happening in the country. "How do I know", I would say, "I work in a newspaper". Things have definitely changed since then and particularly during the past decade of the supposedly democratic dispensation. It would appear that the newspapers have considerable freedom to report and to critically review the national scene. But the complexities of what this freedom means and what are its uses are generally not taken into account. After all, what is the purpose of the freedom of the press if it is unable to to perform certain functions, such as to protect and promote democratic values and the rule of law?
Though these thoughts have been present to me for some time, glaringly in the context of the non-debate on the nuclear issue, I feel prompted to return to them by the present focus on relations between the government and the press with specific reference to actions against the Jang Group. Apart from whatever other points that have been raised by the government spokesman on Sunday, in a rebuttal to the statement issued earlier by the Jang Group, there is this perfunctory commitment to press freedom. The government, it has been asserted, "has always promoted, preserved and protected freedom of the press as an article of faith as the government itself, particularly Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his colleagues, are a product of a culture of democracy in which dissent and differences are very necessary and essential ingredients".
Reassuring as these words are, they do not reflect the increasing futility of the available press freedom in the present circumstances. Indeed, the situation has remained the same during successive regimes. But the overall drift is detrimental to the realisation of objectives that may be associated with a free press. I have had some occasions to make presentations on this subject and I identify four major barriers to a meaningful exercise of press freedom in Pakistan. With these barriers, it should be difficult to agree with the government spokesman when he says that the press freedom "is certainly not at stake in the lively and vibrant democracy of Pakistan".
Before I begin to interpret these barriers, there is this overpowering sense of frustration over the practice of the authorities to treat the revelations and opinions expressed in the independent media with utter disdain. You read stories of corruption in high places that are very credible and you see nothing happening in response to stated facts. Yes, these stories do become the basis for some action when the rulers are thrown out of power and become a nuisance for the new rulers. Is this how the press freedom should be honoured? Cynicism grows among newsmen when they find that their authentic reports generate no corrective measures. In this process, even the effort to remain credible tends to suffer and an environment is created in which disinformation and misinformation can easily be planted.
Essentially, the press is only one of the various institutions which are to be associated with the struggle to improve our political, social and economic conditions. And the most decisive role is played by the character of governance and the quality of the people who are at the helm of affairs. If steps that are of fundamental importance for the establishment of a democratic polity are not initiated as a matter of priority, the very purpose of a free press would be seriously undermined. Hence the importance of the first barrier that I see in the path of a responsible press -- the barrier of illiteracy. When the rulers of a country have left its people overwhelmingly illiterate in more than 50 years of freedom, you can imagine their commitment, say, to the freedom of the press.
You do not need to have exceptional wisdom to realise that it is not possible for a nation to make progress without mass education. But in spite of tirelessly professing the importance of education, no government has so far made a definite endeavour in this direction. In any case, the task of establishing a dialogue with the people and creating an informed public opinion is bound to be affected by the fact that the people are not educated and cannot read the newspapers.
My second barrier is civilisational in nature. At one end of the spectrum, our society is becoming increasingly intolerant and this has a symbiotic relationship with how the rulers have exercised their authority. Consider the manner in which Nawaz Sharif is seeking to promote the Shariah Bill. It is a sad truth that intolerance has grown in recent years and the fact that this growth has overlapped the existence of our electoral democracy should make you shudder to think of what lies in our future. Can a free press exist and flourish in this atmosphere? At the other end of this spectrum is the degradation of values in a cultural and moral context. Our reading habits are poor and the standards of our higher education are generally falling.
The third barrier that I identify would call for a somewhat extensive elucidation but I will have to refer to it here only in passing. This is the language barrier. Since English is the official language in this country, the language of empowerment, we have effectively two nations in this country. This has implications, also, for the quality and influence of the English and Urdu language newspapers. A large number of people are not able to be proficient in this foreign language because of a dual system of education and cultural differences. Hence, the domination of English has become the reason for the de-intellectualisation of our society. It is a another factor which pushes the under-privileged young boys towards madrassas which cultivate religious fanaticism.
If the language barrier is not easy to fully comprehend, my fourth barrier to press freedom poses no mystification. It is the control of the electronic media by the state. Again, all our governments have submitted to the temptation of using the electronic media for official propaganda. Here is evidence that the government does not consider "dissent and difference of opinion" as the "necessary and essential ingredients" of a culture of democracy. Or, perhaps, it does not believe in democracy. We know that in an illiterate society, television and radio can be an exceedingly powerful means of communication. But this media is congenitally partisan in its approach. What worries me more is that the official control of the electronic media also tends to inhibit debate on social and cultural issues.
In this perspective, what freedom does the press have to crusade for a liberal and progressive society by reaching out to the ordinary people and by involving them in a debate on vital national issues? Honestly, the very idea of public opinion as a factor in our politics becomes a farce in these circumstances. The circulation of our English language newspapers, which incline towards liberal views, is abysmally low, even considering the literacy percentage. The Urdu press, too, is not very widely circulated and it is dominated by conservative opinions. And the government would not be happy with the Urdu newspapers offering the same kind of criticism that the English newspapers can get away with. But getting away with it is not the same thing as playing an active role in checking the waywardness of our rulers.