pitafi
11-28-2006, 01:24 PM
The soft power revolution ::
Farrukh Khan Pitafi
In order to understand the true reasons for the freedom enjoyed today, we will essentially have to keep in mind the theoretical, technological and contexts of the issue. Harvard Professor Joseph Nye is keen to term the media and cultural influence of a country as the soft power of a state.
The writer is an Islamabad-based independent columnist & media expert.
A few weeks back I pointed out that the relative freedom media enjoyed in this country was not a gift of the present government. On the contrary, it was mainly thanks to two factors. First, the sacrifices of our seniors who did not shrink from being publicly lashed and even letting their blood be spilled. Secondly, the breakneck speed of technical advancement has made it practically impossible for any state, unless it wants to stay frozen in time, to impose a blanket ban on the access to information and the freedom of expression. Only a few days had passed when the government imposed a ban on the vernacular ‘Sindh TV. This even further confirms that whenever the government gets its chance, it does not hesitate in censoring whatever it can. There was a time when the present defunct South Asia Tribune website was banned in the Islamic republic. Likewise, even as I write something as simple as Google’s portal for weblogs called Blogspot (or Blogger.com) is blocked in this country. While you can open the home page, any of the weblogs hosted on this portal cannot be accessed. Weblogs have become the new way of maintaining opinion columns and public diaries without the fear of editing and if such a simple website can be banned, then we can judge how liberal the government is towards the media.
Let me first share a few thoughts about the channel called ‘Sindh TV’ and then go on to discuss the reasons of the prevalent breathing space in the country. While my Sindhi is not up to much at all, I can say without any doubt that it was one of the best vernacular channels as far as its current affairs footage was concerned. I remember having seen Akbar Bugti’s extensive interview and relished every bit of it. Astonishingly the anchor asked the questions that were reflective of the government’s concerns. Likewise, it is the same channel that produced an excellent Urdu documentary on the life of Zulfi Bhutto. Now this channel has been banned on purely normative grounds. It is astounding notable that even though it did not have the permission to distribute its footage inside Pakistan, it was allowed to function for considerable time. Ironically, there are much more powerful channels which are allowed even though their managers never felt obliged to seek formal permission from the Pakistani authorities.
Similarly, FM 103 was disallowed to relay BBC’s hourly special bulletins for Pakistan. And if you have care to take any notice, only a few days back a BBC reporter was kidnapped and then released. The reporter and the journalist community believe that he was abducted by the government’s secret agencies. So it is clear that the government is not an unwavering believer in the freedom of the press. There must be some other reasons for this media power equation then.
In order to understand the true reasons for the freedom enjoyed today, we will essentially have to keep in mind the theoretical, technological and contexts of the issue. Harvard Professor Joseph Nye is keen to term the media and cultural influence of a country as the soft power of a state. In Nye’s words: “The basic concept of power is the ability to influence others, to make them do what you want. There are three major ways to do that: one is to threaten them with sticks; second is to pay them with carrots and the third is to attract them or co-opt them, so that they want what you want. If you can get others to be attracted, to want what you want, it costs you much less in carrots and sticks – If I am persuaded to go along with your purposes without any explicit threat or exchange taking place – in short, if my behaviour is determined by an observable but intangible attraction – soft power is at work.” During the Kargil operation it became clear that while the Pakistani media was giving separate thanks to Nawaz Sharif’s machinations, Indian media both at home and abroad played a very critical role in the diplomatic win for its country. When this is its import in international politics even the authoritarian states can ill afford to keep their media in shackle for long.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the popular media is that apart from playing this critical role it has also become a voice of the people. Newspapers and the electronic media help people not only in making their minds but also voicing their concerns. They provide considerably cost effective means for the common man in the street to communicate to the authorities his choices. Hence this soft power becomes the people’s power. That is exactly why the postmodern states are so adamant at not using media as the tool for negotiation. Negotiating through the media therefore is considered a big ‘no no’ in the international diplomacy, just because the states remain afraid of the people’s power.
Now consider the fact that despite the momentary impediments like the so called ‘war on terror’ the world is rapidly globalising. This globalisation is marked by the gradual but constant decline of the nation states. While the economic connotations of globalisation considerably known, a word is due on its technological and informational aspects aptly called the information revolution. We all know that internet played a vital role in this revolution. Before internet, it was very difficult to communicate at large distances. Thanks to the internet, the distance in this context is no longer a hurdle.
The internet technology was born out of the insecurities of the cold war when the US was afraid that in case of sabotage if the communication centre was taken out, all its military communications will fall into disarray. Hence a peer to peer network was established presently known as the Arpanet. After the demise of the cold war, it was former US Vice President Al Gore who, cognisant of the cultural and economic potential of the technology, brought it out of the military labs. And no wonder it became an instant hit. Since a global decline of the nation states was construed as the force to impact the US also, the American conservatives were highly critical of the technology. That is exactly why the American establishment was so keen to see Al Gore defeated in the 2000 presidential elections. Immediately after the election defeat a shady war on terror started in which the terrorists were seen using the internet despite the fact that the US government had enough influence over the net that it can easily stop its abuse. Then we also witnessed the US intelligence officials calling the internet, the Afghanistan of the terrorists. But despite all these slander campaigns, the internet and other advanced information technologies have become a force to reckon with and may one day usher in a true global democracy. I am sure it will take us an age to understand Al Gore’s true contribution to humanity.
Add to the internet the advances in satellite and mobile technologies and you can gauge the true power of the information revolution. Now you can conveniently use your mobiles to access internet and can even watch television. A true scope of these technologies is beyond a common man’s imagination today. But that doesn’t mean that a future fully empowered by such technologies is less likely to happen.
Then see that while big business and politics have the power to forge an alliance and manipulate media to its likes, a classic case of which is Fox News which has impacted the neutral media outlets like CNN, BBC and even CBS. There is no gainsaying that the chances of a new challenger’s rise can easily tip the balance in the people’s favour. Take for instance the new kid on the block ‘Aljazeera International’ which has proved to be the breath of fresh air. Umpteen other news channels are soon to be launched on the global stage with positive impact on the world politics. The only regret that remains today is that of the absence of a full time English news channel from Pakistan.
Now consider the present media liberties in Pakistan. The government had to allow the cable networks to function because the control of the satellites was in the foreign hands and the dish antenna technology had become considerably cheap. Likewise it is wrong to believe that Musharraf allowed private electronic media to function in Pakistan. The gradual process of liberalisation had started as early as the first Benazir government when People’s Television Network was launched which later became Shalimar Television Network. During Nawaz Sharif’s era, a private media group even mulled over launching its television through a low orbit satellite which could be seen on the regular terrestrial sets. And when the journalists are not allowed to convey their message they can easily use internet for this purpose. I hope you remember how rumours through text messages ruled the country when power broke down in the country on a massive level during Musharraf’s visit to the US. Even if the government wants to ban a website today, it can hardly do so because presently a web surfer has many ways to trespass such a blockade. And then of course who can forget Zia’s legacy. We all know that while Zia’s success during his own time is still debatable, his media censorship ensured that he could not win in the long term. Musharraf’s junta that found the circumstances less favourable could hardly opt for stifling the media freedoms.
Farrukh Khan Pitafi
In order to understand the true reasons for the freedom enjoyed today, we will essentially have to keep in mind the theoretical, technological and contexts of the issue. Harvard Professor Joseph Nye is keen to term the media and cultural influence of a country as the soft power of a state.
The writer is an Islamabad-based independent columnist & media expert.
A few weeks back I pointed out that the relative freedom media enjoyed in this country was not a gift of the present government. On the contrary, it was mainly thanks to two factors. First, the sacrifices of our seniors who did not shrink from being publicly lashed and even letting their blood be spilled. Secondly, the breakneck speed of technical advancement has made it practically impossible for any state, unless it wants to stay frozen in time, to impose a blanket ban on the access to information and the freedom of expression. Only a few days had passed when the government imposed a ban on the vernacular ‘Sindh TV. This even further confirms that whenever the government gets its chance, it does not hesitate in censoring whatever it can. There was a time when the present defunct South Asia Tribune website was banned in the Islamic republic. Likewise, even as I write something as simple as Google’s portal for weblogs called Blogspot (or Blogger.com) is blocked in this country. While you can open the home page, any of the weblogs hosted on this portal cannot be accessed. Weblogs have become the new way of maintaining opinion columns and public diaries without the fear of editing and if such a simple website can be banned, then we can judge how liberal the government is towards the media.
Let me first share a few thoughts about the channel called ‘Sindh TV’ and then go on to discuss the reasons of the prevalent breathing space in the country. While my Sindhi is not up to much at all, I can say without any doubt that it was one of the best vernacular channels as far as its current affairs footage was concerned. I remember having seen Akbar Bugti’s extensive interview and relished every bit of it. Astonishingly the anchor asked the questions that were reflective of the government’s concerns. Likewise, it is the same channel that produced an excellent Urdu documentary on the life of Zulfi Bhutto. Now this channel has been banned on purely normative grounds. It is astounding notable that even though it did not have the permission to distribute its footage inside Pakistan, it was allowed to function for considerable time. Ironically, there are much more powerful channels which are allowed even though their managers never felt obliged to seek formal permission from the Pakistani authorities.
Similarly, FM 103 was disallowed to relay BBC’s hourly special bulletins for Pakistan. And if you have care to take any notice, only a few days back a BBC reporter was kidnapped and then released. The reporter and the journalist community believe that he was abducted by the government’s secret agencies. So it is clear that the government is not an unwavering believer in the freedom of the press. There must be some other reasons for this media power equation then.
In order to understand the true reasons for the freedom enjoyed today, we will essentially have to keep in mind the theoretical, technological and contexts of the issue. Harvard Professor Joseph Nye is keen to term the media and cultural influence of a country as the soft power of a state. In Nye’s words: “The basic concept of power is the ability to influence others, to make them do what you want. There are three major ways to do that: one is to threaten them with sticks; second is to pay them with carrots and the third is to attract them or co-opt them, so that they want what you want. If you can get others to be attracted, to want what you want, it costs you much less in carrots and sticks – If I am persuaded to go along with your purposes without any explicit threat or exchange taking place – in short, if my behaviour is determined by an observable but intangible attraction – soft power is at work.” During the Kargil operation it became clear that while the Pakistani media was giving separate thanks to Nawaz Sharif’s machinations, Indian media both at home and abroad played a very critical role in the diplomatic win for its country. When this is its import in international politics even the authoritarian states can ill afford to keep their media in shackle for long.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the popular media is that apart from playing this critical role it has also become a voice of the people. Newspapers and the electronic media help people not only in making their minds but also voicing their concerns. They provide considerably cost effective means for the common man in the street to communicate to the authorities his choices. Hence this soft power becomes the people’s power. That is exactly why the postmodern states are so adamant at not using media as the tool for negotiation. Negotiating through the media therefore is considered a big ‘no no’ in the international diplomacy, just because the states remain afraid of the people’s power.
Now consider the fact that despite the momentary impediments like the so called ‘war on terror’ the world is rapidly globalising. This globalisation is marked by the gradual but constant decline of the nation states. While the economic connotations of globalisation considerably known, a word is due on its technological and informational aspects aptly called the information revolution. We all know that internet played a vital role in this revolution. Before internet, it was very difficult to communicate at large distances. Thanks to the internet, the distance in this context is no longer a hurdle.
The internet technology was born out of the insecurities of the cold war when the US was afraid that in case of sabotage if the communication centre was taken out, all its military communications will fall into disarray. Hence a peer to peer network was established presently known as the Arpanet. After the demise of the cold war, it was former US Vice President Al Gore who, cognisant of the cultural and economic potential of the technology, brought it out of the military labs. And no wonder it became an instant hit. Since a global decline of the nation states was construed as the force to impact the US also, the American conservatives were highly critical of the technology. That is exactly why the American establishment was so keen to see Al Gore defeated in the 2000 presidential elections. Immediately after the election defeat a shady war on terror started in which the terrorists were seen using the internet despite the fact that the US government had enough influence over the net that it can easily stop its abuse. Then we also witnessed the US intelligence officials calling the internet, the Afghanistan of the terrorists. But despite all these slander campaigns, the internet and other advanced information technologies have become a force to reckon with and may one day usher in a true global democracy. I am sure it will take us an age to understand Al Gore’s true contribution to humanity.
Add to the internet the advances in satellite and mobile technologies and you can gauge the true power of the information revolution. Now you can conveniently use your mobiles to access internet and can even watch television. A true scope of these technologies is beyond a common man’s imagination today. But that doesn’t mean that a future fully empowered by such technologies is less likely to happen.
Then see that while big business and politics have the power to forge an alliance and manipulate media to its likes, a classic case of which is Fox News which has impacted the neutral media outlets like CNN, BBC and even CBS. There is no gainsaying that the chances of a new challenger’s rise can easily tip the balance in the people’s favour. Take for instance the new kid on the block ‘Aljazeera International’ which has proved to be the breath of fresh air. Umpteen other news channels are soon to be launched on the global stage with positive impact on the world politics. The only regret that remains today is that of the absence of a full time English news channel from Pakistan.
Now consider the present media liberties in Pakistan. The government had to allow the cable networks to function because the control of the satellites was in the foreign hands and the dish antenna technology had become considerably cheap. Likewise it is wrong to believe that Musharraf allowed private electronic media to function in Pakistan. The gradual process of liberalisation had started as early as the first Benazir government when People’s Television Network was launched which later became Shalimar Television Network. During Nawaz Sharif’s era, a private media group even mulled over launching its television through a low orbit satellite which could be seen on the regular terrestrial sets. And when the journalists are not allowed to convey their message they can easily use internet for this purpose. I hope you remember how rumours through text messages ruled the country when power broke down in the country on a massive level during Musharraf’s visit to the US. Even if the government wants to ban a website today, it can hardly do so because presently a web surfer has many ways to trespass such a blockade. And then of course who can forget Zia’s legacy. We all know that while Zia’s success during his own time is still debatable, his media censorship ensured that he could not win in the long term. Musharraf’s junta that found the circumstances less favourable could hardly opt for stifling the media freedoms.