Reason in retreat

There is little surprise in learning that Pakistan is placed among those countries where political rights and civil liberties have declined. But the annual report of Freedom House, a US-based watchdog, has also expressed its concern on how democracy has declined globally. In particular, freedom of expression is under attack.

It would be interesting to examine the details of the extensive ‘Freedom in the World 2019’ report, which has classified countries as free, partly free and not free. If there is any consolation there, Pakistan has been declared partly free. Or is this an unfair comment, given the enthusiasm with which the leaders of the ruling party defend their democratic credentials?

Be that as it may, I have only alluded to the Freedom House report to express my dismay that though we regularly discover our lowly position in international or regional evaluations in various fields, we are not making any concerted efforts to make our own assessment of where we are and why we are lagging behind other countries.

At one level, this deficiency has a nexus with the quality of social and economic research in our institutes of higher learning. Ideally, serious debates on national issues are conducted on university campuses. That is where ideas are meant to germinate and advances made in major disciplines. It is likely that we do have some luminaries in the academia but their contributions do not flicker much in the public domain or help resolve our national predicament.

Besides, what I have gathered from my personal encounters with a number of universities and their students and teachers is completely depressing. For instance, every time I visit the campus of Karachi University, the largest in the public sector, may heart sinks. This is something that we would want to hide from the world outside, lest our ratings take a further dip.

Then, there is the media. Sadly, it is in a deep crisis at this time and is barely keeping its head above water. Almost everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. A perfect storm it is and it is difficult to say how this situation will evolve even in the near future. Hence, its capacity to defend freedom and democratic values is greatly diminished.

Still, we do have this high tide of mostly unintelligent discourse in the popular media. Our news channels have apparently inundated the mental landscape of the country with their repetitive and partisan discussions of mainly political affairs. Politicians who represent their parties are expected to be superficial and one-sided. The panelists, the so-called experts, are no better in their performance.

In any case, one is often shocked and disgusted by the wisdom of the kind of public intellectuals that have been nurtured by the mass media. This means that a large number of our citizens, including those who become very passionate in expressing their opinions, have no idea of how a reasoned and rational debate is conducted. In this process, dissemination of hard facts and verifiable truths becomes very difficult. Consequently, the public opinion that is formed can‘t just be delusive, but also subversive in some ways.

Add to this the confusion that is spread through social media. Fake news is a real hazard. What is defined as post-truth – a political culture in which a debate is framed by appeals to emotion in defiance of facts – has become the practice of our political operators.

It is assumed that the print media, when it is professionally well-edited, can serve as an antidote to the vile impact of the electronic and social media. In a partially illiterate and largely ill-educated society, it could at least provide some informational and intellectual sustenance to policy and opinion-makers. A newspaper, particularly in the English language, does have the scope for a meaningful exchange of ideas and opinions.

Ah, but there lies the rub. In the first place, the circulation of our newspapers is limited. In fact, I see it as the manifestation of our poor reading habits and an overall intellectual decline. I am also not reassured by the argument that people now read their newspapers on the internet. I find no evidence of it when I interact with our social elite.

Another point to stress is that when freedom of expression is under attack, it is mainly the print media that bears the brunt of it. There are no-go areas, though the boundaries are not specifically drawn. In this state of uncertainty, discretion is the better part of valour. As a consequence, many vital issues are not sufficiently explored or debated.

Coming to the present state of affairs and the headlines that reverberate in the media, the glaring impression is that of a deepening crisis. It demands a proper investigation and analysis. Some form of a collective wisdom is required to find workable solutions of the fundamental contradictions and conflicts of our society.

Incidentally, a Supreme Court judgment delivered on Wednesday can serve as a working paper to initiate a discussion on countless issues that have been brushed under the carpet for a long time. Yes, the detailed verdict in the Faizabad sit-in case has been adequately reported in the media and has triggered various stories in the print media, including in this newspaper. But perhaps we are not equipped to do critical justice to its entire content.

This judgment has been delivered against the backdrop of the nearly three-week-long sit-in by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) on Faizabad Interchange in Islamabad in November 2017. The judgment came in the wake of a suo-motu case heard by Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Qazi Faez Isa. The long judgment, which covers the entire spectrum of issues that are reflected in the mirror of the TLP protest, was penned by Justice Isa. It is a document that all concerned citizens as well as our rulers should carefully study.

No, I am not even attempting a gist of the Faizabad dharna judgment. The judgment has given directions to a number of state institutions and agencies. The main headline in this newspaper said: “Prosecute hateful fatwa givers under terror laws”. Essentially, as an editorial put it, the verdict “is a searing indictment of state institutions and oversight authorities who have time and again failed the people of this country, either by exceeding their mandate or by abdicating their duty”.

What is needed now is to knowledgeably expound on the issues raised in the verdict in the public domain. I believe that is not likely in the existing environment.

The writer is a senior journalist.

Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com