Uses of press freedom
Ghazi Salahuddin
As we stand riveted to this truly historic showdown between the present government and the Jang Group, the focus on the freedom of the press has the potential of reviving the spirits of a depressed and demoralised nation. Indeed, the outcome of this momentous encounter can become a turning point in the evolution of our polity. But this would require a sober reflection on what the press freedom means and entails in a democratic setting. The time for such a reflection, of course, would come when the great commotion that has led to the hearing of the case by the Supreme Court of Pakistan has subsided. Yet all the concerned players must not lose sight of the long-term ramifications of what is now the basis of flaming headlines.
Having agonised over this issue as a working journalist, I feel that we often have very ambivalent feelings and ideas about what the press freedom is meant to be -- and what it is expected to deliver in an open, democratic society. A major problem is that the rulers, the publishers of our newspapers, the working journalists and the public at large tend to look at it from different angles. For instance, it would be ludicrous to believe that the projection of some forthright dissent in the English-language print media is the token of press freedom in our country, given the level of its literacy and the state of its civil society.
In my previous discussions on this subject, I have repeatedly pointed towards the patently undemocratic features of our supposedly democratic governments and the problems that the Jang Groups has had to face would show how autocratic, almost fascistic, this dispensation has become. In this context, a number of social scientists have, in recent years, questioned the identification of democracy with elections, even when these elections are not rigged -- which has rarely been the case in Pakistan. There has also been an argument that, to quote from a paper by Samuel P. Huntington, "election may be superfluous in a democracy: if people have the freedom to protest, criticise, organise, demonstrate, and lobby their rulers, elections will not be necessary".
With specific reference to 'electoral' or 'illiberal' democracies in countries such as Pakistan, the distinguished American journalist Leslie H Gelb had written, in an article published in the New York Times, that it is "more important for democratising societies to have a free press than free elections". I would like to use this quotation as the peg for my observations on the significance of what is sometimes used merely as a slogan to obfuscate the real issues. And the most fundamental issue here is that of justice and of human rights. Which means that if the press freedom does not constitute a weapon in the battle for the defence of justice and the rights of the people than it is no more than a toy for the journalists to play with.
Just as the freedom of the press is part of other essential freedoms, such as the freedom of thought and of expression, a free press cannot survive, irrespective of what we in the newspapers are able to write, in a society in which other institutions, the judiciary being the most venerable among them, are not functioning properly. The media's role as a watchdog is only possible when its sirens can mobilise other institutions into urgent and positive action. That is how an American president was forced to resign when two intrepid reporters of The Washington Post were able to uncover his transgressions. What would have been the function of a free press in the Unites States if the Watergate stories had produced no response at any official level?
We do not, in fact, need to go as far back as Watergate to show how the revelation of truth in the media can, in a manner of saying, move mountains. Very regularly, we see how in democratic countries ministers and high functionaries have to promptly resign and suffer disgrace when their moral or financial improprieties are revealed in the media. They do not even have to wait for a court to pass a judgement. Significantly, indiscretions which relate to private conversations are also considered accountable. But our rulers have a strange disregard for hard facts and for the message that is conveyed by the truth-telling media -- and the real tragedy is that they seem to get away with it until the situation degenerates into a conflagration.
There are various other aspects of how the press freedom should operate in our circumstances which would call for a national debate in the wake, as I said, of the present crisis in relations between the government and the print media. Meanwhile, it is very encouraging that a newspaper group is leading this struggle because in the past only the journalists were left to fight their lonely battle for press freedom and for better working conditions. But there is an urgent need for unity in the profession, which may be hard to achieve because of the existing fragmentation of and polarisation in our society.
Let me refer, in passing, to some seminal issues that are relevant to the growth of a free press. At the functional level, freedom of the press will remain a farce so long as the electronic media is controlled by the government. This simply does not make any sense in times when we have been overwhelmed by satellite television and the information revolution. Then, we must also honestly contend with the problem of responsibility. The freedom of the press should naturally be conditioned to a well-defined set of rules and code of conduct. The press must also be accountable for its performance. At the same time, a concerted effort must be made to introduce and improve professionalism in the working of the press. Here, again, publishers, editors and the journalists should come together to define the rules of the game.
Much more intricate, however, is for the rulers to understand that a free press can be an effective tool in their professed endeavour to build a more prosperous and stronger Pakistan. A free press has a symbiotic relationship with education, social advancement, tolerance in society and, surely, with a vibrant economy able to support the industry with sufficient advertising. Hence, the press and the government need to work together to liberate this afflicted country from its shackles of social, economic, moral and political backwardness. With this alliance, the priorities can be set right and we can begin to see hope where total darkness now prevails.
All the parties which are involved in the present confrontation will need to learn their lessons when the dust settles down. There should be an occasion for a genuine contemplation on all the issues that have now arisen. It is my fervent hope that deliberations within the newspaper industry as well as the journalistic profession are able to highlight the crucial relationship between press freedom and an open and liberal society. It is in the vested interest of those who work in the media to uphold liberal values necessary for the creation of a plural society. It is particularly necessary for the owners and managers of the media to realise that, for instance, the Taliban will never have any use for a free press.