‘Awaam ki adalat’ (citizen’s court), a fiery talk show aired on May 29, passed the verdict that Pakistan should end its alliance with the US against the war on terror. It comprised of a host with a mission, a hall full of clapping youngsters and the case advocated by at least two other talk-show hosts on the panel. The upshot was quite predictable. Clearly, politicians should not be the only ones convicted of playing to the gallery.
The end result was even more interesting. After taking votes electronically, the host concluded the programme with the caveat that though the motion had been upheld, it did not represent the whole awaam (public) but only the people present. In the absence of a national referendum on the issue, this redundant observation highlighted the already contrived situation. However, the opinion upheld by the host here may well be reflective of the popular opinion in Pakistan.
This raises some important questions regarding foreign policy making in Pakistan. Is the media dictating foreign policy to the foreign ministry? What are the sources of input for formulating foreign policy in the foreign ministry? There can be little dispute that a strong and free media is a healthy aspect of a nation and should be encouraged. The media is ‘free’ when the government of the day does not imprison/torture it, yet they have been captured by other elements/organisations/interests (or concern about their ‘ratings’). A sense of right or wrong, ethics or even the interest of the awaam is lost in pursuit of a cause much less noble.
In many developed countries (the US in particular), foreign policy is heavily influenced by think tanks. The reports, documents and policy briefs produced by them are highly influential for informing their policy makers and formulating policy. Some of the think tanks design ‘briefs’ short enough to be read by relevant policy makers (aimed at 10 minutes) as they arrive from the national airport and go to Capitol Hill. Task force reports on important issues are also very popular. Experienced key people working on these issues get together to synthesise information, analyse policy imperatives and make recommendations to the government to follow a path that will maximise their national interests and achieve their goals.
The important point to note is that the input from think tanks is at times quite different from what the popular opinion of their awaam may be leaning towards. Some of the reasons why the input being supplied by the think tanks is at times at great variance with the popular opinion are because: (a) it is sometimes based on information that has not been shared with the public at that point in time; (b) it is formulated by experts who keep in view the long-term gains of a certain policy rather than the immediate gains of a policy initiative; (c) the advice is based on a synthesis of that region/issue in the historical perspective, sound analysis by seasoned/retired diplomats and intelligence officers bearing in mind any political ramifications of policy initiatives — rationally looking at the national interest from the mind, rather than merely with empathy.
Out of the 11 political, strategic and economic think tanks based in Pakistan, many have an astute and perceptive approach to foreign policy problems. The Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI), under the ministry of foreign affairs, issues publications that are fairly refined and reflect no radicalisation of any sort. Sadly, they seem to have no voice and not much of an audience. According to an ISSI report: “Given widespread dissatisfaction among people at large, cooperation becomes even more limited and there remains a considerable gap between public sentiment and actual policy. What is lacking is an action agenda that helps develop an approach which directly and positively impacts the population … A strong Pakistan-US alliance is critical for the stability of South Asia and the world at large.”
As Manuel Castells accurately points out, “mass media is like a snowball, rolling down the hill. It has picked up speed. The huge ball has not exploded yet”. Our foreign ministry may not have steady sources of input for foreign policy making and implementation. Schizophrenic political directives, or such influence of the media, on significant foreign policy matters that affect the whole awaam in such a big way are patently proving defective.
Without having a steady system whereby foreign policies are moulded — other than direct political orders from the top (currently, really from the top after Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s exit on February 11, 2011) — the influence of the media may be gaining more prominence, a media that may be getting rather radicalised on certain issues.
The determinist hypothesis may indeed have something to offer as seen by the media in its repeated coverage of certain events telling the awaam what is important. Indeed, it may not be telling the awaam merely what is important, but how to go about thinking about it. The manner in which propositions are shaped, the way questions are answered and verdicts passed all signify something, but is only registered in the context of the issue being discussed and not on the agenda that is being followed or the consequences thereof.
Even though clapping teenagers do not formulate foreign policies, if that is the path down which the awaam is being led on issues of grave significance, we may well have radicalisation of our foreign policies where our situation is not much different from Iran or Afghanistan. Indeed, from a certain perspective, those adopting violent ways to protest against the US or Pakistan’s fight against ‘terrorism’, are merely using a different ‘medium’ to radicalise Pakistan. A foreign minister (not an acting one) in place to give stable and balanced direction on significant foreign policy matters aided by sober, erudite input would help the situation, not captive courts campaigning for extremist policies.
The author is a Fellow at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. She can be reached at [email protected]