|
[This column is a summary along with a commentary of Pakistan's multiple governance issue]
Maleeha Lodhi // DAWN: 03 February 2025
THE collapse of the government-opposition dialogue in just a few weeks after only three rounds has come as little surprise.
No one thought this would be an easy process. Or that it would yield quick results. The gulf was too wide as indeed the trust deficit between the two sides. Above all, there was a big question mark about the stance of the elephant in the room on how much it was prepared to back or encourage the process. That remains crucial but indeterminate.
The talks which began in December broke down when the ruling coalition refused to budge on PTI’s core demands of appointing two commissions and release of its incarcerated members.
Judicial commissions to investigate what happened in the May 9 and Nov 26 incidents, which PTI leaders have been accused of inciting, should not have been difficult for the government to accept to ensure talks continued for the sake of political stability.
Governments, after all, always have more to lose from confrontational politics and turmoil. If the government was sure of the facts, it should have acceded to the demand. What better way to substantiate its allegations against the opposition than appointing judicial commissions to ascertain facts in a neutral and legitimate way.
The proximate cause for PTI to call off the talks, however, was the raid on the home of the Sunni Ittehad Council leader, Hamid Raza, its close ally and spokesman of the party’s talks committee.
But PTI’s position that it was ready to resume negotiations if the two commissions were announced indicated it was keeping the door open for dialogue. PTI leader Imran Khan, however, called the government’s failure on this count a “sign of deceit”.
The government made ambivalent noises but offered no assurance it was prepared to seriously consider the commission demand. Nor were any jailed PTI activists released — not even a few to demonstrate an accommodative approach.
That PTI should have shown more patience is one thing. But for government ministers to subsequently mount the airwaves to mouth a familiar narrative against PTI vitiated the climate for talks. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif accused PTI of running away from dialogue while voicing a desire for talks to continue. But he did not match his words with action.
Adding to the re-eruption of government-opposition tensions was the latest move by the ruling coalition to further circumscribe the freedom of expression. Having used a variety of informal methods over the past several months to control and tame the mainstream media, the government proposed changes to the cybercrime law to criminalise online speech by amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca).
This has far-reaching implications for freedom of speech. Characteristically, the PML-N-led government rushed the amendments through parliament without debate or consultation which were adopted amid loud protests by the opposition.
Under the amended law, whoever disseminates “fake news online” can face up to three years in jail. This is another effort to tighten government control over the digital space which has already seen a ban on X and other internet restrictions and censorship.
The PML-N-led coalition has gone much further than its civilian predecessors in imposing digital curbs and micromanaging the electronic media. Television channels are told what not to broadcast and even who to invite as commentators. Undeclared media curbs have involved ‘advice’ on how and who to cover in the opposition.
The latest Peca changes have provoked strong protests — from the opposition, media and human rights organisations. PTI was joined by other parties in parliament to condemn the amendments, with an ANP leader calling it a “draconian law”.
Journalists walked out of the National Assembly and Senate when the new law was adopted. Journalist organisations also mounted nationwide street protests that denounced Peca as a black law and an attack on free speech.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said the law was “likely to become yet another means of targeting political workers, human rights defenders, journalists and dissidents by effectively penalising criticism of state institutions”. Newspaper editorials called it a “gag order”.
The government has remained unmoved in the face of the widespread rejection of the Peca amendments. And for all the government’s posturing on keeping the “door open” for talks with the opposition it has shown little readiness to address its grievances.
Its controversial steps including changes in Peca and earlier adoption of the 26th Constitutional Amendment — which undermined the independence of the judiciary — all marked steps towards greater autocratisation of the country. They also offered little incentive to the opposition to cooperate making its stance even more rigid on talks.
A return to confrontational politics and political turmoil will have enormous costs for the country’s economic and political stability. True that a degree of macroeconomic stability has been achieved by the government’s measures of reining in the fiscal deficit, building foreign exchange reserves and curbing inflation — after of course securing the IMF loan package. But stabilisation is fragile and requires not just for the government to stay on course but a climate of political calm.
Moreover, a bigger economic challenge lies ahead of transitioning from stabilisation to growth and investment. This needs a stable and predictable political environment.
Revival of political tensions will jeopardise any sustainable economic recovery and a path to growth. Economic growth was less than one per cent in the first quarter of the ongoing fiscal year. Investor confidence is obviously undermined by political uncertainty. Investment has already plummeted to a historic low. Last year, it was 13pc of GDP, the lowest in half a century.
Political calm is also needed to reverse the alarming deterioration in the security situationdriven by a surge in terrorist and militant violence across KP and Balochistan. This made last year the deadliest in a decade in casualties suffered by security forces.
A cooperative relationship between the federal government and the PTI-run KP government is essential to effectively deal with the security threat from militants.
For these compelling reasons, both the government and opposition, especially the ruling coalition, need to rethink their positions and show flexibility to arrive at some kind of modus vivendi for the sake of the country.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, February 3rd, 2025
===============================================================================
[This column will give the readers an insight into unprecedented clampdown on media in Pakistan.]
Huma Yusuf // DAWN: 03 February 2025
WHEN I first started working as a journalist, my senior colleagues and field-hardened editors introduced me to the concept of the release valve. I was often surprised that we were able to investigate a sensitive issue or publish strong criticism of the state, those being the years of the Musharraf dictatorship, and Pakistan not exactly known for its press freedom.
The media persists, I was told, because Pakistan’s various authoritarian and hybrid regimes understand the need for a roiling, simmering society to let off steam. The press, albeit confined within a matrix of red lines, enabled the public to feel heard, warned the generals of the tenor of public sentiment, and allowed everyone to ignore authoritarian truths beneath the veneer of democratic norms. Which Pakistani leader, whether in uniform, a suit or sherwani, while touring global capitals has not pointed to Pakistan’s supposedly vibrant press as proof of their democratic credentials?
The hasty passage of the Peca Amendment Act, 2025, (likely accelerated by the looming anniversary of the Feb 8 elections) confirms that this savvy — if cynical — approach to press freedom, and free speech more broadly, is over. The state’s desire now is for complete, unapologetic control.
Draconian is not a suitably dire adjective to describe the amendment. With its passage, we have all been recast as ‘digital terrorists’. Anything that critiques the ‘ideology of Pakistan’ or state institutions will now be deemed fake news. Blocking powers extend from specific content to partial or whole blocks of online platforms. And there is little judicial recourse for those falling foul of the law — a new regulatory authority will come equipped with its own investigation agency and tribunals, restricting independent judgements. Readers should consider this — the definition of social media is being broadened from platforms such as X to private messaging channels. Even WhatsApp may be threatened.
The state’s desire is for complete, unapologetic control.
In the context of Pakistani free speech, this amendment is the boiling water that the proverbial frog did not feel coming. The slow march to digital control has been underway since the mid-2000s. Earlier, our free expression rights were stripped under the guise of protecting us from blasphemy and pornography; later, they were curtailed in the name of national security. Now, the ostensible target is disinformation, but the sweeping amendments are explicitly aimed at silencing any criticism of the state, political dissent or attempts at holding state institutions to account. The shadowy Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Evaluation of Websites that used to block websites in the absence of any legal framework has now metastasised into the Social Media Regulation and Protection Authority — the prognosis for free speech is gloomy.
These harsh measures will be counter-productive. Attempts to suppress dissent rarely quash critical views; they validate and intensify them, and drive them underground. Debates that cannot be held in the public sphere will move offline, deeper into the dark web. Discourse that must be tempered due to broadcast or social media moderation requirements will become more radicalised and inflammatory.
Peca 2016 has been wielded against hundreds who criticised military excesses in Balochistan and KP, and more recently against PTI supporters. Censorship in the name of cybercrime has not quelled these ethno-nationalist or political movements; if anything, it has spurred them on, including in increasingly radical directions.
Then there’s the economy to consider. Internet shutdowns, including partial or full social media bans and internet throttling, cost the global economy billions each year. Ac-
cording to a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, internet shutdowns cost Pakistan between $892 million and $1.6 billion in 2024 (the number varies based on the calculation methodology used). By the latter estimate, Pakistan last year experienced the highest economic losses in the world due to internet crackdowns.
And this will not be the worst of it. In the 21st century, digital rights are synonymous with human rights. Economic privileges such as Pakistan’s preferential access to EU markets under the GSP-Plus scheme, due for renewal in 2027, could be jeopardised on the basis of the Peca Amendment (along with other excesses such as the 26th Amendment and military trials for civilians).
Many foreign investors will be deterred for fear of having to localise data or be dragged into the quagmire of citizen surveillance and digital rights violations. Is this cost worth it?
The state will present the amendments as protection against the ravages of social media and disinformation. But make no mistake, this is about censorship and control, and we won’t be able to say as much.
The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
X: @humayusuf
Published in Dawn, February 3rd, 2025
===============================================================================
|
