What the Army Wants

Spearhead Analysis — 22.12.11

 

The media is going bananas with all kinds of theories and scenarios. There is talk of some kind of move afoot to oust the elected President-either by impeachment or by using the incapacitation clause in the constitution. For the first you need a two-thirds majority and for the second you need to establish that the President is incapacitated. There is no way that either of these conditions can be met. The unconstitutional method of a military coup is out of the question in the present environment unless there is a catastrophe. The President is the driving force behind the political coalition that is the government in Pakistan and all are agreed that the change they want can only come through the ballot box.

There is the rumor about a civil-military confrontation over the memo-gate affair. The media is going to great lengths to point out that the military and the government are on a collision course. The reality is that the government asked the Pakistan Ambassador to the US to resign so that the matter could be processed and a conclusion reached. The opposition took the matter to the Supreme Court while the government sent it to the Parliamentary Committee for Security. The matter is proceeding on both tracks. The Army Chief and The Director General ISI have given written responses to the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court had directly asked them for their views. If the Parliamentary Committee asks them they will no doubt respond positively. Both the government and the military want the matter to reach conclusion because of the inherent implications. The Supreme Court is on record as having said in an earlier case that they will not act to derail the system.

There have been statements from responsible people asking for the resignation of the ISI chief because of the allegation made that he visited Arab capitals to solicit support for ousting the government. The methodology to do this has not been spelt out nor has anyone considered exactly how such support could be extended and to whom. The reason being given for the demand is that because the Ambassador resigned therefore the ISI chief should also resign. The difference, of course is that the Memo was investigated and found to be a reality and that this was confirmed by a retired US general who also admitted being the courier. The investigations now being made may well exonerate the Ambassador. The ISI has denied the allegation, called it baseless and sent a legal notice to the British tabloid that made the allegation. The government may investigate the matter if it has any reason to doubt what has been stated.

Read Complete Article Here: What The Army Wants

 

The state of our media

While we rightly celebrate freedom of media and general freedoms in Pakistan, it is time that we look back and see how some in media conduct themselves, and how the media in general relates to society. Watching coverage of daily incidents, I cannot hesitate to make some frank comments on the commentators. First, I don’t see a balance between the freedom to ask a question, which contains an answer in itself, and the responsibility that comes with that freedom. It seems that the anchors before the cameras — and the scriptwriters feeding them lines, words and expressions —are riding a wild horse, and that too for the first time. Some of the anchors appear to be riding high on the power that they think they wield over society, but without realising two important points. First, the power of the media is institutional, not individualistic, in a mature environment. Egoism, self-exaltation and a false sense of importance and superiority, as if these anchors are the chosen ones, with a mission to confront, humiliate and question the integrity of anyone they face, are all things not found in established media.

The second point is that they don’t realise that the more they play a mixed game of egotism and raw power, the more they undermine their own ability as well as that of the media in general, to remain credible and relevant to the democratic needs of society. Many serious viewers find political talk shows empty of substance, superficial and polemical. The discussions leave intelligent men and women offended and viewers with partisan affiliations, outraged. The role of the free media in Pakistan is opposite to what it presents itself; it must steer the debate among contending political groups to create clarity for the common man in order for him to form an informed opinion.

Political talk shows have already damaged their power and influence to a great degree, and the more they do the same, the more they will diminish their capacity to do some good for society. My own observation and informal discussions suggest that people at large are turning away from political talk shows, which are not entertaining, analytical or honest enough to keep the viewership loyal to them. The growing habit of channel surfing is not due to boredom but due to the search for some substance.

Another point relates to the selection of issues for each hour of the day. From the looks of it, it seems the proprietors don’t seem to be interested in quality shows like documentaries, investigative reports or discussion with knowledgeable experts on the challenges that we confront. This would require a different quality of producers, anchorpersons and managers and more investment, better vision and a commitment to quality rather than to filling time space. Resultantly, the media becomes focused on non-issues, debating for hours the statements of party leaders and trying to get some meanings out of them when they have none.

Even when issues of some importance are debated and discussed, they are done to death with the same questions being asked over and over again. I find a clear lack of understanding of the political, social and cultural world of Pakistan, and of the history of the region in discos on television shows; and this forces the media to trivialise the most significant issues.

Amidst all the pains of growing up is the issue of populism. What this means is that the media provokes public emotions and feeds itself on these emotions. The end result is a conspiratorial mindset, emotionalism and negativity.

By: Rasul Bakhsh Rais
The Express Tribune