State, politics and mass media

By Shafqat Mahmood

It is not easy to find heroes among contemporary politicians. Clean image is a rarity and incompetence seems to be a shared trait. The exceptions in this unsavoury milieu stand out like a beacon of light.

Yes, flowery language is being unashamedly used because it requires an iron will to spurn opportunities of corruption in this environment. And keeping one’s sanity or inherent abilities intact in a sea of mediocrity is no joke either.

One person who has done this in style, ever since he entered politics is Senator Raza Rabbani. The much used word “integrity” does not do justice to him. He is truly above the sordid world of wheels and deals and money-making.

He is also immensely gifted: a bright mind, steady determination and great interpersonal skills. It is these qualities that helped him steer the inter-party committee towards a broad constitutional overhaul. As a shepherd of the historic 18th Amendment he is truly a hero.

Accolades also need to be shared around, because every party made a contribution. The PPP as initiator of the process deserves congratulations, as does the PML-N for not only pushing the repeal of the infamous 17th Amendment but also showing flexibility when things got difficult in the end.

The relatively smaller parties, such as the ANP and the MQM, while having reservations on many clauses, still went along in a spirit of national conciliation. They agreed to ground rules that allowed dissent to be recorded, without derailing the process. The historic result is a tribute to the entire political class.

While much mutual praise is in order, the role that mass media has come to play in the process is relatively unrecognised. Nawaz Sharif was probably only reflecting misgivings in his party when he expressed some last-minute reservations. But the media truly took him to task.

The PML-N grandees kept protesting that this was no crisis and issues will soon be resolved. But the media would not let up. The explanations given did not make logical sense to it and seemed bereft of any moral content. This created so much pressure that it literally pushed the PML-N across the finish line in haste.

This is just one example of the context that mass media has created for our governance and politics. It is no longer possible for individuals, institutions or political parties to get away with actions that do not pass the bar of logic and morality.

And there are no consistent heroes either. It is entirely possible for one individual or an institution to get total media support on an issue and then lose it if the context changes. Individual writers and commentators may consistently support a party or an institution, but the media in totality will order its responses according to a given situation.

The mass media reflects mainstream norms of the society. These are in essence based on a code of morality derived from religion, culture and history. Some parts of this value code are obvious: family and country are revered and democracy is good. Corruption, cheating and lying is bad.

Similarly, institutions such as parliament, judiciary, and military are valued, but any transgression of authority beyond the prescribed mandate is not tolerated. Leaders are to be respected because they represent the people but pursuit of individual or political interest without an ethical content is not acceptable.

It is this value structure that has subliminally become a framework for mass-media responses. Institutions and individuals in the public eye understand this and try to cover, or spin, their actions to fit this code of morality. Those that do not, suffer a media backlash.

There is no better example of this than the perceptions regarding Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the judiciary. On March 9, 2007, Mr Chaudhry became a media and public hero. This happened because of the perception that Musharraf dismissed him illegally and then mistreated him and his family.

Thus began the lawyers’ and people’s campaign for an independent judiciary. This was not individual adulation, although it seemed so. The chief justice symbolised society’s protest against a wrong done. And the lawyers who were in the forefront of the struggle were champions of liberty and freedom.

Fast-forward to 2010. There are increasing voices in the media that the superior judiciary is transgressing its mandate and at times behaving like a political institution. By frequently visiting the bars, it seems to be cultivating lawyers and often senior advocates and bar officeholders speak on its behalf.

Serious transgressions by lawyers are also ignored. For a lawyer to slap a judge and for the superior judiciary to arrange a rapprochement is just not right. This man should have been behind bars.

But congratulatory sounds emanating from all levels of the judiciary indicate as if a great conclusion to the crisis has been arrived at. Earlier, too, the judiciary had ignored lawyers beating up policemen and media representatives.

This is not about the NRO or Asif Zardari. The media welcomed the NRO, and Asif Zardari does not pass the bar of morality as far as society is concerned. The problem is that the PPP’s charge of one-sided accountability is beginning to get resonance. And the language and attitude being shown in open court by the judges is creating a backlash.

Enough about the judiciary. A few words about another national institution, the military. Musharraf had brought the image of the army down because in the eyes of the media and the public his actions did not pass the bar of morality. Gen Kayani has resurrected this by daring campaigns in Swat and South Waziristan and by staying away from political wrangles.

The sacrifices given by officers and men in this war against militancy have evoked deep appreciation among the society and the mass media. It is therefore unfortunate when an incident like the Rangers kidnapping a police official happens.

Policemen are often rude and poorly trained. There is little doubt that this constable would have misbehaved. But the Rangers’ hierarchy should have lodged a complaint. The law of the land does not permit a paramilitary organisation to detain anyone, let alone law enforcement officials.

The reaction in the media was thus not unexpected. None of the explanations coming forth from the Rangers were either logical or based on any moral code. This is the key. In the age of the mass media all actions have to be justified. They have to appeal to logic and to the ingrained moral code of the society.

Of course, this does not mean that the media itself is above any code. There always has been serious criticism of individuals and institutions in the media that go beyond what is acceptable by the society. The moves by the electronic media to regulate itself have come about because of such a pressure.

As our democracy matures, every institution will find adjustment within a framework of social morality. Until such time, everyone in the public eye will have to watch each step taken, carefully.