NUCLEAR-ARMED Pakistan goes to polls on July 25 with a sense of trepidation as global media fixes its gaze on a country that Washington routinely accuses of treachery, even as its death toll from terrorism has crossed 80,000 civilians and soldiers.
A recent string of suicide blasts targeting politicians and political rallies, including the latest one on July 14 in the southwestern town of Mastung that killed 149 people, have instilled a sense of fear among citizens.
To boot, impeached former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was arrested last week on corruption charges alongside his daughter and political heiress Maryam Nawaz immediately after flying into Pakistan mere weeks before the polls.
Moreover, media freedom has slumped with major outlets like the Dawn newspaper and Geo TV facing distribution blackouts apparently ordered by the caretaker government, or so the story goes.
As a frontline state in the global war on terror for the last 18 years, Pakistan has seen its share of blood and gore. Yet the persistence of high-stakes terrorist attacks by the Taliban or their rebranded comrades, Daesh, raise many questions.
The army high command routinely claims the majority of terrorist sanctuaries in the regions neighbouring Afghanistan have been destroyed and the militants flushed out. Then how are they able to mount such coordinated strikes on soft targets?
As with all things in Pakistan, the answer is “it’s complicated.” What is less complicated, however, is the usual scapegoat when politicians run afoul of the law: the alleged “deep state” shadow government of the army.
Conspiracy theories are gathering steam about the army scheming to keep the former premier out of politics before he spills the beans on its many extra-constitutional acts over decades past.
Media organisations in Pakistan meanwhile claim the “deep state” ordered the heavy-handed crackdown by police on their staff and operations ahead of polls to prevent the truth from reaching voters. They have thrown such accusations in the past at Sharif himself, who has now become a convenient ally.
Such assertions reek of opportunism even if they possess some truth in them. Ironically, the rapid growth of Pakistan’s media industry began in the era of former dictator General Pervez Musharraf over a decade ago, and not a civilian government.
This debate hangs on three questions. One, how much media freedom defines free and democratic societies? Two, what are the building blocks of democracy? Three, has the army ever wilfully sabotaged democracy in Pakistan?
First, media freedom is subjective and determined by the national interest. A cursory review of the stories circulating in print or the myriad news talk shows confirms that despite its present accusations, the Pakistani media is generally free to report on whatever or whoever they please, provided they do not slander.
Cyril Almeida, for example, a popular columnist for the Dawn daily has made a career out of ridiculing the army as “boys” in his crude satire-laden pieces.
In 2016, however, he landed himself on the national no-fly list for “revealing” a rift between Sharif and the army that both parties swiftly denied. Luckily for Almeida, the politically connected grandees of Dawn group kept him out of jail.
The army is a sacred cow to a degree, yes, but not beyond reproach, especially by columnists in both the English and Urdu language presses. Moreover, having worked in Pakistan, I can safely argue that media innocence is a myth.
The mushrooming of news channels has sparked cutthroat competition for ratings, especially among talk show hosts who often throw out outlandish accusations or besmirch rival networks without proof.
A textbook example is popular TV personality Dr Shahid Masood who earlier this year made the explosive and ultimately baseless allegation that some ruling party politicians, including a federal minister, were patronising a child pornography ring. He got away with a slap on the wrist in the form of an apology to the supreme court and a few months ban. He is now back on air.
Additionally, media outlets themselves seek political patronage and stories of journalists receiving envelopes stuffed with cash under the table for favourable framing are commonplace.
Next, when politicians or media owners rail about the threat to democracy from the “deep state,” it is worth putting into perspective what makes this system of government tick.
The cornerstones of a government by the people, for the people, are robust state institutions that adhere to their constitutionally stated boundaries. It is regulated by a system of checks and balances. When individuals keep eclipsing the institutions, there can be no continuity to national progress.
The fundamental problem with Pakistani democracy is its subservience to political dynasties and cults of personality like Sharif, the late premier Benazir Bhutto and her father, and even Khan. They harp on about equality and fairness with little transparency to intra-party elections, or merit to party leadership positions.
Moreover, when in power, both Sharif and Bhutto heavily politicised key state institutions like the police, bureaucracy and the judiciary. And when the focus of state institutions is to preserve the status quo in lieu of capacity building, their ability to evolve withers.
Hence, it is no surprise that the army commands such high approval ratings from citizens, as besides protecting Pakistan’s borders, it is also called in to save the day during national emergencies like floods and earthquakes, and even crowd control if political protests turn violent.
Pakistani politicians in pursuing self-interest at the expense of institutional supremacy have, by their own hands, let the proverbial camel’s nose into the tent.
They have unwittingly raised the political profile and popular appeal of the army beyond their own. More regrettably, Pakistani news outlets over time have largely abandoned objective journalism and instead become the pulpit for partisan politics. In such circumstances, the notion of a “free media” is farcical.