Over the weekend, reports broke out that some 79 cases had been filed in the last three months for negative propaganda against the state and its various institutions over social media. These can be filed now, since the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Bill 2016 was passed in August of last year. The bill was widely criticized by civil society and rights based organizations, especially since the language of the bill was so ambiguously worded. Promises were made than that this is in the interests of Pakistan and will be used to target anti-state actors and proscribed organizations.
Less than a year later, things have come full circle.
Twenty two people have been arrested under the bill, and at least two journalists have been asked to appear before the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to explain their social media posts. Of the 22, at least eight are political workers that belong to both Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf (PTI) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). PTI cried foul and threatened to sue the state, claiming their workers were innocent, while one of the journalists, Taha Siddiqui, filed a writ against the FIA in the Islamabad High Court.
I understand the need for the state to protect itself and its institutions. But this is an egregious example of gagging those that demand better answers and transparency. It is an unsaid international convention, that people of any country should have the utmost respect for the military. These are brave men and women that are willing to, and in Pakistan, often do, lay down their lives to protect our way of life. However, disagreeing with the military should not amount to the state mounting a brazen and miscalculated campaign against those that dissent.
Asma Jehangir, Siddiqui’s lawyer, stated in a press briefing that the government should please the military on its own merits. While it is a statement designed to jolt the state, it goes a lot deeper than that. Pakistan’s powerful military is unhappy with the government’s progress on a variety of issues, and the government is focused on appeasement as elections loom in less than a year. This dissatisfaction with government institutions manifests itself in a variety of ways, perhaps most prominently in military courts. These courts do not exist because the military enjoys having a parallel judicial system; they exist because the state run criminal justice system has failed time and again to provide prompt, fair trials.
Journalists are not perfect; they are deeply flawed . . . but they perform an important function in the machinery of democracy, that of questioning and seeking accountability
Freedom of speech, everywhere in the world, is not guaranteed one hundred percent. This is why laws against hate speech or incitement to violence exist. Speech should be curtailed when it is going to cause physical harm and mayhem, and that requires strong legislation to protect people. However, that is simply not the case here.
There are a plethora of other mechanisms to manage dissent. Offer counter arguments and debate the issue. Socially ostracize the individuals. Provide evidence of how your viewpoint is correct and theirs is not. Criticize them for their flaws. Ideally, individuals should not say hurtful things, and of course people should not be offended due to crass statements. But that is a utopian concept that has no grounding in reality, and it certainly does not deserve legislation, let alone prosecution/coercion of dissidents.
Siddiqui, an award-winning international journalist, can be very belligerent and vociferous in his criticism. I will be the first to admit, I do not necessarily agree with a lot of what Siddiqui says or how he says it. But I will also be the first to state that in a democracy, he as a journalist has the right to say it. And that is an important distinction. Democracy is not strengthened by muzzling dissent, or by intimidating the media. Journalists are not perfect; they are deeply flawed and sometimes overly critical and harsh in their assessments. But they perform an important function in the machinery of democracy, that of questioning the narratives we have been given, and asking for better accountability.
To quote Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
The writer serves as a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected] and tweets @zeesalahuddin