Bulldozing the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (PECB) through the National Assembly (NA), Anusha Rehman, a state minister in a set-up where even the federal ministers say they are helpless, told the opposition that they are working on “NGO agenda” while she is acting on behalf of the “young girls (who) have committed suicide” due to cyber bullying.
Either portion of her argument is as misplaced as it can be. Sure, NGOs press politicians to do what they are not able to. Eyes fixed on the dollars, international donors agree to dole out in lavish roundtables in splendid hotels and serene drawing rooms of Islamabad, intellectuals and writers start churning out arguments for the projects Pakistan better do without.
The projects that are unnecessary if not outright destructive engage the best of our minds because development sector has become an industry. But Ms Anusha was not talking about this critical approach to look at NGOs.
However, it remains a fact that NGOs are needed to fill the gap which governments leave in the domain of public welfare, and all that they do is not so skewed as perceived. Space in the parliament for women is one a manifestation of NGO activism. Unfortunately, this space meant for unlocking potential of women ideally from working class has been grabbed by the likes of Ms Anusha who are not but a cog in the system, in which the main pillars of state are seemingly set against the parliament.
There is no problem with anyone if the lawmakers are castigated in public but all hell is raised if anybody else from the power echelons feels the slightest of flames. This Bill is at best a product of minds who know nothing about media and its impact on society and at worst it is an attempt by some maniacs to massage their ego at the cost of people’s right to live better lives.
Teaching media at university level for over a decade and practicing it twice as long, I have no calms admitting that our society has barrowed an industrialist’s version of media freedom, which requires the government not to stop him from becoming “the fourth pillar of the state”.
This concept does not tell people that they have a right to know all shades of truth on media in which lies its freedom. What does media freedom mean when a media mogul tells us that thousands have gathered in Istanbul to protect democracy ignoring the hundreds marching in our towns for accountability? Sure, people reject this brand of freedom and come to Internet where they have a variety of information and where they have opportunity to look at different, if not all, aspects of a phenomenon. This, for them, is the real freedom of expression because it allows them diversity of content, which is as vital for healthy growth of society as biodiversity is for a livable climate.
All the same, this argument is not result of a romance for Internet, which too is manipulated at a level and serves to endorse the status quo in a way. The purpose of placing this argument here is just to point out that Internet gives people a chance to have diversity of content, which they should not be robbed of.
Now that we know the philosophical basis for having less restricted access to Internet, we also witness that the mainstream media has been chasing us there through its online editions and streams. Chasing us there, the mainstream media producers know very well that they cannot compete with the production of raw and rough content online by the talent that is scattered beyond their reach. At the same time, the government knows that it can control a few TV and newspaper outlets but cannot reach out to tens of thousands of Internet users engaged in discussing and spreading pieces of news, true or false, which it wants hidden.
Hence, it is in the interest of both the mainstream media moguls and the government to stop free flow of information on Internet, which is why no big media house, except for one or two, have launched any campaign against this draconian law. After its passage, there is no doubt in a media observer’s mind that it is a victory of mainstream media moguls and the government teamed up against the masses, which is a bad omen. It seems they have overestimated their powers unbeknown to the fact that Pakistan is 200 million-strong people with a history of breaking through barriers. If the repulsive kingdoms in Gulf could not muffle down their peoples on Internet for all of their repressive laws, how will an elected government in a democracy succeed in doing it?
The blogger is a PhD candidate in media studies