Daily Times

Last week saw two steps by the federal government that hint at the unleashing of a rein of authoritarianism in times ahead. The steps highlight the will of powerful quarters in the country to curb dissent, access to information and freedom of expression. One is the Cybercrime Bill and the other is the Nazam-e-Salat introduced by the ministry of religious affairs, a first step towards destroying religious diversity in the country and an act to curb freedom of religion.
Let us focus on the Cybercrime Bill for now. The bill is a masterstroke in idiocy. In their bid to curb dissent and freedom of expression, the powerful quarters have completely ignored the issues of practicality and the economic impact of this move. That it is punishable to send a text or email to someone without prior consent shows the men in-charge have no idea of how the world or economy works. They probably have no idea how critical traditional trash mail was in the evolution of developed economies around the world. Even in the US and EU, where the concerns of privacy are paramount, no one would ever think of banning spam emails or texts. For instance, in case of the US, the only spam texts that are banned are the ones sent through auto-dialers and no effective law curbs spam email. If those working in our information technology ministry had any clue of how spamming works, they would not have made a fool of themselves trying their hand at something their brains cannot comprehend. While we are at it, does the government even know that there are messaging services available whose texts cannot even be tracked by the tools the IT ministry has at its disposal becaused they have the ability to self-destruct. All my friends should have my written consent signed or I will have them punished for sending me text messages!
Then there are the sweeping sections 17 and 18 that ban hacking without realising that hacking, ironically, also is the only cure for digital security threats. Does anyone know of any better qualification of the information technology minister than that of her pushing her husband for a lucrative director’s post at Pak Telecom Mobile Limited (PTML) Pakistan? She definitely seems ill qualified for the IT minister’s post or anything to do with IT, if the text of the bill is anything to go by.
Beside these follies lies the real crux of the bill, its raison d’état: curbing dissent and curtailing free speech. Authoritarian regimes across the world fear the ability of the internet to mobilise public opinion. Many blamed the fall of autocracies during the Arab Spring on the internet. One recent example is the Yemen war, where the Sharif government’s desire to side with the Saudis attracted a strong backlash starting from social media, ultimately leading the government to opt for neutrality. The government is uneasy and so are other powerful arms of the state. Read the draft bill and you will find that the government can shut any information system (server, website, and internet route or service provider) that is considered as harming national interest, security, public order, morality and decency, glory of Islam and relations with friendly states. Now here arise many questions: who will define what the national interest is? What threatens national security? What is morality? What constitutes the glory of Islam? Which are the friendly states? And if these are this obvious, will the honourable minister of IT clarify whether the US is a friend or a foe? If it is a friend, where will it put the campaign of justice for Raymond Davis or campaign for drone victims? If Saudi Arabia is a friend, the government would have had its way shutting down all criticism on social media and sending our troops into mindless regional conflict with sectarian implications.
Apart from allowing the government to curb dissent and free speech, the article gives protection to the courts and armed forces from criticism. Fortunately, the armed forces of Pakistan, as an institution, have enjoyed good repute among the data-driven people of Pakistan, despite harsh social media criticism over the acts of a few men at the top stemming from greed and lust for power. If the armed forces have survived the criticism they have received thus far, they will survive more too. They just do not need such laws to protect them. In fact, the only thing that tarnishes the repute of the armed forces is when they are seen as being hegemonic; this bill is one such slope. As for the courts, they will be the last resort for any such act to be challenged. Now, if they have a stake in the bill, how can they be fair arbitrators in this? In the past, people have criticised Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary for protecting his family interests in the guise of contempt of court law. If so, imagine what power this draconian law will grant the courts. I do not know whether the armed forces and courts insisted that the government grant them these sweeping protections or whether the government added them in as a bribe. If it is the latter, it will be for their own good if they ask the government to exempt them from these protections. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) is famous for issuing statements on issues related to foreign aid and politics. It will do it loads of good to issue a statement dissociating the armed forces from this law otherwise they will be considered a party to this.
Of course, Mr Sharif is very fond of moral policing as is evident from his previous stints in power. One just wonders what is wrong with Nawaz Sharif? Every time he comes to power on the promise of economic reform but during his tenure all he does is introduce an authoritarian agenda and few infrastructure projects marred by allegations of kickbacks. In the end, he departs after leaving the public exchequer drained, the economy in a tailspin and minimal foreign direct investment or local investment. His evolution seems only to be from amir-ul-momineen (leader of the faithful) to digital amir-ul-momineen with his quest for social regression intact.

The author can be reached on twitter at @aalimalik