Of pragmatism and idealism

IN terms of the green light gained by all save some of the independent channels that the government considered a thorn in its side, there is a very visible clash between idealism and pragmatism.

Idealism argues that the channels that signed on the dotted line — reportedly having got the authorities to accede to a fair few compromises — ought to have refused to go on air in solidarity with those whose voices were stifled. What idealism refers to as a principled stand, pragmatism calls an irresponsible attitude because journalists owe a responsibility to both their viewing public and the big business that any media organisation undoubtedly is. Pragmatism says that the coverage on our screens today is proof that whatever the compromises were, they did not involve obvious concessions in terms of the investigative principles of journalism.

The polar rigidity of both these views reflects a dangerous split in reasoned dissent against authoritarian policies. If things were so black and white, if the path so clearly lit, matters would not have come to such a pass in the first place.

The idealists’ views have merit since what the regime is playing to great effect is the divide and rule game. The subtext being understood by the world at large is that the targeted organisations must really have been rogue elements and the stamp-down was necessary. After all, goes the argument, most channels are back on air and broadcasting apparently unbiased coverage.

Had the channels decided on a one for all, all for one stance, it would have constituted a strong message to the west about the administration behind which it continues to put its weight. For all his demands to lift the emergency and revoke the PCO, the subtext in President Bush’s messages is that the line of communication is still open and that America is still listening to the general. Similarly, on the face of it Commonwealth secretary general Don McKinnon’s words of censure were strong: that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) “has suspended Pakistan from councils of the Commonwealth pending restoration of democracy and rule of law in the country.” In actuality, as Sanjay Suri pointed out on the IPS news agency on Nov 12, it is only a slap on the wrist because it is not full suspension. The difference is significant since, for example, Pakistan participated in the Commonwealth games held in Manchester in 2002 despite its suspension from the councils between 1999 and 2004. Suspension from the councils means only being barred from participation in some decision-making bodies of the Commonwealth such as the CMAG itself. As Suri put it, “it is not clear to anyone what exactly Pakistan lost through its period of suspension from the Commonwealth 1999-2004. Nor is it clear what the Commonwealth gained by it. Whatever the stated positions of the Commonwealth, in Harare or later, its stand on Pakistan now allows for the following: join the army, stage a coup, retire as president.”

In such a situation, where continuing damage is being done to the idea of Pakistan, there is great value in presenting a united front and making a common demand.

Be that as it may, however, pragmatism dictates that life must carry on. If only things were so simple. Had the channels taken themselves off-air voluntarily, the move would effectively have achieved exactly what the regime wanted: the lack of information, discussion and dissent. Furthermore, no business can survive indefinitely without revenue. The choice, as the decision-makers were well aware, was always between eventually shutting down for good and negotiating. While the latter course holds no appeal for the idealists, the bottom line is that in the end, nothing anyone could have done could have forced the authorities to withdraw from the face-off. In a country where the law is changed to suit those in power, where the government is willing to use whatever force it deems necessary, it would have been somewhat pointless to take a self-debilitating principled stance on the expectation that the government would eventually discover ethics. In negotiating, at least the dictatorial directives were formally challenged and reportedly, certain vital concessions gained.

The answer, then, lies somewhere between the extremes of idealism and pragmatism. The principles of journalism must never be compromised, including the right to free speech and open debate. However, this also means that media organisations must monitor themselves strictly so that they never have to try to defend poor journalistic practices that can become an excuse for a clampdown on the press. The freedom of speech includes the freedom to choose one’s words carefully.

hmumtaz@dawn.com

Will APDM really boycott polls?

Although media reports suggest that parties in the All Parties Democratic Movement have decided to boycott the Jan 8 polls, some leaders are sceptical that the decision will be adhered to. They think that the situation will be clear only after a few days.

PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif, due to arrive here today along with the rest of the family members, will be meeting various leaders over the next few days to keep them away from the electoral process. However, in case the opposition parties could not take a collective decision, the PML-N will not like to leave the field open to the adversaries.

In such a situation interesting contests will be seen in Lahore.

Attorney-General Malik Muhammad Qayyum says Mr Nawaz Sharif cannot contest the election because he was a convict — and the sentence was still applicable — when he was banished to Saudi Arabia in December 2000. However, he said, Begum Kulsoom Nawaz and Mian Shahbaz Sharif could take part in the election as they faced no disqualification.

In case of a decision in favour of the polls, though reluctantly, Mr Sharif will be a candidate from NA-120 against the PML-Q’s Khwaja Tahir Zia who was a councilor when Mr Sharif was the prime minister. Ostensibly, it will hardly be a contest.

Begum Kulsoom Nawaz will be contesting from NA-118 against PML-Q’s Mian Muhammad Azhar.

In 2002 elections, the first president of the established-backed PML-Q was defeated at the hands of Hafiz Salman Butt. In case Begum Kulsoom jumped into the field, she may get sympathy vote as a result of which Mian Azhar’s chances to win will become dim. Mian Shahbaz Sharif may be a candidate from NA-119 against PML-Q’s Tariq Badruddin Banday.

If the personal contacts of the past are a consideration, it is possible that some PML-Q candidates may withdraw from the electoral race.

Analysts say that even if the PML-N chief doesn’t contest, his very presence will destabilise the Pakistan Muslim League that remained in power for the past five years. And defections, if any, will not be an objectionable act as the PML leadership lured many opposition legislators to their side between 2002 and 2007 despite the fact that they already had two-thirds majority in the assembly and did not need opposition lawmakers’ support.

The impact of the reports of the Sharifs’ return was seen in Lahore on Friday when more than a hundred PML-N workers participated in a protest demonstration against the suspension of the Constitution and the imposition of the emergency rule. This ‘crowd’ was much bigger than the party has been organising in the recent past.

The organisers have been admitting that because of the absence of the leadership from the country, not many people were willing to come out on the streets. A couple of demonstrations organised in the recent past were participated in by not more than few dozen people.

Those watching the political scene say that stability could not be expected in the times ahead as there would be a confrontation between the PML-N and the PML because of their bitterness of the past. Another confrontation would be seen between the Sharifs and President Musharraf, the arch rivals who hate each other with passion.

PML-N leaders say that the Chaudhrys of Gujrat got an opportunity to dominate the center-stage politics after the banishment of the Sharifs. The leaders returning from exile would not forget how the Chaudhrys worked against them in their absence and to keep them away from the country for as long as possible.

As things stand, the Sharifs have to wrest the control of Punjab from the Chaudhrys. The struggle will keep the two in a confrontation mode.

However, it is expected that the relationship between the PML-N and the PPP will be much different from the one of the past. In the late 80s and till the ouster of the PML-N government in 1999, the PPP and the PML-N have been ‘sworn enemies’. The confrontation between the two parties would always be remembered by people.

However, both the Sharifs and Ms Bhutto are expected to have learnt a lot from the mistakes of the past. They are expected to adhere to the spirit of the Charter of Democracy they had signed from the platform of the ARD last year.

Although the PML-N alleges that the PPP had violated the charter by holding talks with Gen Musharraf, the two sides would be more accommodative in the times ahead. They are not expected to revive confrontation even if they are on different sides of the political divide.—ASHRAF MUMTAZ