| A |
reliable indicator of the extent of individual independence and exercise of fundamental rights is free speech, the highest form of human rights barring the right to life. The right to free speech is, of course, not a dedicated right for the media and its practitioners alone. Rather, it is a guarantee for every citizen, albeit its most accurate measure—or litmus test—is the extent of expression allowed to the media.
The freedom to speak freely is guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly its Article 19, with which the country’s constitutional assurance on freedom of expression is aligned. This guarantee is enshrined in Article 19 of the constitution. Pakistan is also a signatory to the UDHR.
But how Pakistan endorses the UDHR and what it actually practices are two different things. There’s plenty to be ashamed of. Freedom of expression in Pakistan—78 years after independence and 52 years after the 1973 constitution promised it —is not absolute. It is severely restricted, even constitutionally.
They say that if you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticise. By this metric, Article 19 of the Pakistani constitution is revealing; it takes away with one hand [much of] what it gives with the other in terms of guarantees. The exceptions reveal who lords over the perimeter of free speech in the country.
The first half of Article 19 promises freedom of expression; the second half outlines what is not covered by this right: criticism of Islam (not all religions); the armed forces; the judiciary; and ‘friendly states.’ All these are unelected, non-representative actors.
Since Pakistan’s inception at least three of these actors have imposed both declared and undeclared coercions on free speech. Proof? Over 180 journalists have been killed in Pakistan in the 21st Century alone. What is an assassination if not the worst form of censorship? Several recent studies list all these as among the actors behind these killings, besides other state and non-state actors.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was arguably the first person to be censored when his famous August 11, 1947, speech promising a religiously plural state and a secular polity in practice, was excised. Pakistan thus became a quasi-theocratic state with the right to free speech being a perennial victim.
Equating criticism of unelected actors with blasphemy and treason by implication has been ironically sanctified in the 1973 constitution drafted by elected representatives of the people. In recent years all three major political parties in power (the PTI, the PML-N and the PPP) have enacted laws introducing stricter limits on free speech, including online, and enhanced punishments and penalties.
Laws enacted in recent months, including the defamation law in the Punjab introduced by the PML-N government and amendments to the national cybercrime law, PECA, by the PML-N-PPP coalition government, have criminalised not just dissent and criticism but also the coverage of political forces and their leaders that run afoul of the establishment.
This is a media sector under siege. But even public expression of politics (including elections), economy, governance (supra-cabinet bodies at the federal and provincial levels), forced/ unpopular legislation and policies in the provinces dictated by supra-parliamentary forces (mines and agriculture) and rights advocacy (coercive hounding of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan) are no longer considered kosher.
Essentially the very forces meant to protect the fundamental human rights, including the state of Pakistan and its key departments, are not only failing to enforce the right to freedom of expression but actively contributing—through policy, procedure and practice—to limit its already suffocating boundaries. These forces include the elected governments and ruling parties as well as the departments they are supposed to govern.
International rights, freedom of expression and media watchdogs have in recent months issued detailed reports, exposes and analysis on how the quality of Pakistan’s democracy is dramatically deteriorating due to the heavy-handedness of the state in coercively curtailing the freedom of expression. Among others, these watchdogs include the International Federation of Journalists, the Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Freedom House. Their recent annual ratings show Pakistan slipping in rankings related to democratic space, freedom of expression and safety of journalists. Their assessments are damning independent indictments of the poor state of media independence in Pakistan.
Look at the TV and print media: virtually all are consistently blacking out the rights movements in parts of the country. This is not limited to the peripheries; recently, even the Quetta Press Club was sealed to prevent coverage of unreported grievances that certain groups come to air.
Even when students protest in Lahore; women from Balochistan try and speak in Islamabad outside the press club; minorities cry in interior Sindh against majoritarian intimidation; and parents of honey-trapped blasphemy-charged children in the Islamabad High Court, they don’t find much space in conventional media.
Pakistan cannot ride in two boats. It can’t be democratic in policy but dictatorial in practice when it comes to freedom of expression. When free speech is restricted, people cannot adequately or meaningfully engage with the state; if that is done consistently and persistently, the state cannot remain a democratic prospect in functional terms.
Pakistan’s socio-political pluralism cannot be airbrushed by proceduralism. Sustainable legitimacy for a state is essentially grounded in its Fourth Estate. The three traditional pillars of a conventional state—the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature—are present even in a dictatorship or in autocratic states; freedom of expression and a society where the media is free are the difference between a functionally independent state and a procedurally smug state.
Guaranteeing and practicing effective and functional freedom of expression is how a state derives its legitimacy and empowers its people. Pakistan falls short on that count and must redress this failure to deserve a meaningful state of independence and earn the right to celebrate it. Dependence on censorship and muted freedom of expression is not a sign of independence.
The writer is a media analyst and development strategist.