As we approach the finish line on May 11 in a fog of bombings, killings, advertising blitzes, media clamour and derogatory invective by leaders, it seems that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has squandered an opportunity to effectively monitor and regulate the use of advertising and media during the elections.

An unprecedented opportunity became available to the ECP through the first part of the Report of the Media Commission appointed by the Supreme Court on January 15. The two-member bench of the Court comprises Justice Jawad S Khawaja and Justice Arif Hussain Khilji. The Commission comprises Justice (retd) Nasir Aslam Zahid as chairman and this writer as member. With the approval of the Court, the Commission invited former federal secretary, Salim Gul Shaikh to serve as secretary. All three persons serve on a voluntary basis.

While the Commission is asked to provide its report on nine terms of reference (ToRs) (published in leading newspapers on February 17), one of these ToRs is particularly relevant to the upcoming polls. This ToR states: “To enquire into allegations of media-related corruption and suggest steps to ensure impartial and independent media for the upcoming elections.”

The Commission began having meetings with stakeholders even before receiving the first installment of funding support as ordered by the Court from the funds available with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Commencing on February 7 and concluding on March 18, meetings were held in Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, Quetta and Islamabad with over 165 individuals associated with over 80 organisations.  While interaction with this wide range of viewpoints covered all nine ToRs, there was specific focus on aspects related to media, advertising and elections.

The first part of the report was submitted to the Court on March 21. The Commission made several recommendations in 11 different modes. Through self-regulation by media organisations, individual proprietors, journalists, practitioners;  through oversight by the ECP; through civil society networks; through official regulations; through internet-based media; through suggested ECP directives to state-owned media and organisations; through vigilance by caretaker governments; through political parties and candidates; through suggested activism by readers, viewers, listeners; through international observers and overseas organisations; through detailed forensic audit and investigation likely to go beyond the elections’ phase.

Taking prompt note of the Report, the Court in its order of April 2 directed the ECP to consider the recommendations of the Commission. The Commission had formulated eight recommendations for oversight by the ECP alone and a ninth recommendation in another mode dealing with the ECP’s oversight of PTV, the PBC and APP.  A few days later, the ECP submitted to the Court that one of the principal recommendations of the Commission could not be implemented for various reasons.

On April 17, the complete text of part one of the Commission’s report was placed on the Supreme Court’s website. The Commission’s recommendations dealing with the role of advertising and media in the elections did not receive any attention whatsoever by the very sector directly involved i.e., the media itself. As a further consequence, citizens in general and media audiences in particular also remain unaware that the text of the report can be accessed on the Court’s website.

While there is a precise limit to the expenditure by a candidate for the National Assembly i.e., Rs1.5 million, the amounts being spent by political parties can only be calculated after the elections, and not on an ongoing basis. According to a reliable source, one major party from one funding source alone is spending Rs380 million on advertising. Is the ECP aware of such expenditure?

Real-time transparency and accountability would have been possible if the ECP had implemented one of the principal recommendations of the Commission. This recommendation proposed that the ECP, using either its own resources or the resources of the caretaker governments, establish a political advertising cell in the ECP itself.: “ … all media would receive requests/orders for political advertising through this cell in the ECP and would, in turn, provide invoices to the ECP to obtain payment for such advertising, in advance, or within the specified period. 

“Such a proposed cell would ensure that the ECP remains fully informed on the precise space/time being used for political advertising in mass media by candidates and parties and the exact charges being applied by print media and electronic media.  Such coordination of information would ensure a level playing field for all parties and candidates and conform to the principles of complete transparency and accountability … This proposed cell-methodology would be superior to the conventional methods of obtaining expenditure statements from parties and candidates on a post-facto basis i.e., after the elections. This proposed methodology would also prevent the malpractice of discriminatory rates for space and time that could be charged by media in favour of some parties and candidates and to the disadvantage of other parties and candidates, data about which the ECP would normally remain uninformed because media, specially TV channels and radio channels can, and do vary their rates from time to time, and from client to client … ”

In this writer’s opinion, whose views herein are in an individual capacity and not on behalf of the Media Commission, the ECP has glaringly failed to render a positive role in the media and advertising dimensions of 2013 elections.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 10^th, 2013.

For at least three reasons there is a need to consider alternative forms for the ownership of private news media instead of the single-owner or a small group-owner form.

The first reason is that news media have become one of the four pillars of the interrelated structure of society and state: the other three being the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. Unlike the other three pillars, which are ‘owned’ by the people at large, the privately-held news media belong to individuals or families or groups of investors on a commercial basis. As an essential component of the contemporary nation-state, the determinant factor for privately-owned news media — as for the other three components — must be the public interest, not the private profit motive.

The second reason is the nature of news media content. Unlike a physical product or tangible service purchased by a consumer, news media content absorbed by a citizen shapes awareness and perception about events and trends that affect citizen, society and state, which affect how an individual views the world at large. Information and opinion exchanged between the seller and the buyer of shoes and shirts, of airplane seats and hotel rooms are limited to the quality, price and performance of a given item. Branded goods and services sell because their buyer knows the predictable content in advance; whereas the content of news media in particular is unpredictable, volatile, unknown in advance. There are relatively few media users who transcend the content they receive. News media virtually define the public agenda, shape attitudes, influence consumer spending through advertising. Such power must, therefore, be subject to non-partisan principles of the public domain.

The third reason is the instinctive non-transparency of news media about their own internal financial realities. The public has no free, convenient access through websites to such information in so important a sector. Data about the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is almost always instantly accessible, whereas data on several dimensions of the media remains invisible. For example: employment terms (except for Wage Board Awards in print media), relationships with media-buying houses, which purchase time and space in bulk volumes, role of ratings agencies, which measure viewership and popularity of programmes and channels, circulation of print media and the connection with advertising tariffs, value of government-controlled advertising, amounts paid to media by overseas entities to promote public service campaigns, the cartel-like media owners’ associations, cross-media dominance, and cross-sectoral interests of news media proprietors in other fields.

Proprietorship of news media being different from the proprietorship of conventional commercial enterprises creates special obligations. News media should always serve the public interest by dispensing fair, accurate, balanced, non-partisan content in a clear, coherent manner, independent of commercial considerations and official influence. Very few, if any, media enterprises meet such tough but essential criteria. The only electronic news media owned by the state, i.e., PTV and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) are not purely public interest media. In addition to being under government control and despite being the sole recipient of the TV licence fee, PTV also has a voracious appetite for advertising revenue. Poor, deficit-laden PBC is entirely at the mercy of government control and is heavily subsidised to ensure survival.

News media enterprises have expanded and diversified into new media. Despite uneven employment terms, they have created jobs for thousands. At times, they have suffered losses. They have often withstood coercive pressures by governments, which misuse control of official advertising to intimidate them. Yet, many news media have also prospered exceedingly well. Not a single large media group has gone bankrupt.

Our news media have rendered a valuable role in raising public awareness about important issues to unprecedented levels. Some of their content and programmes do substantially, courageously serve the public interest. Their satire and humour are inventive and entertaining.

Yet, news media content has also become unbalanced. Driven by a business model which seeks the lowest common denominator and the highest ratings, news media promote sensationalism, commercial excess, de-sensitisation by inane repetition of violent actions, imitative competition and sheer speculation. TV channels have dumbed down levels of taste and reduced calm, reasoned reflection. Public discourse on TV in particular direly needs rescue from the heedless pursuit of maximum audiences and optimal profit.

One alternative model for the ownership of news media could comprise the following elements: all news media entities should be publicly listed companies required to be registered with at least one stock exchange. Presently, only three media firms out of over 100 are listed i.e., (non-news) Hum TV, Media Times (Daily Times, Business Plus TV) and Southern Networks.

No single shareholder or group should be permitted to hold more than, say, two per cent of shares to enable the widest possible dispersal of shares. All financial aspects must be instantly accessible on websites. Segments of civil society, such as professional associations, public interest bodies, service delivery organisations, rural community-based networks, charitable and social welfare forums, research and educational institutions chosen by an even-handed process could be entitled to also hold limited blocks of shares on a rotational basis. No one single interest group would have the voting power to adversely influence content, or control the management of news media.

Selected strictly on the basis of professional competence and integrity, the management of such differently-owned news media would be accountable only to the widely-dispersed groups of citizen shareholders, not to a single individual or family or small group. If willing to make the transition to leaders-managers, proprietors of existing news media could apply their skills and vast experience in a dynamic new direction. They already have enough assets and income from other sectors: they will surely get a good price for their present shares in media enterprises!

After extensive consultation, new legislation and regulation can be formulated to ensure freedom of expression and accountability for alternative models for news media ownership. A new era could commence in which news media owned by the people truly serve the public interest in a balanced, transparent manner.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 7^th, 2012.

Of Martyrs and Marigolds by Aquila Ismail is a poignant and evocative portrayal of the so-far largely untold aspects of a sad saga. In a novelised form, the book depicts the shattered dreams and dilemmas of the Urdu-speaking Bihari-origin residents of East Pakistan, particularly in the years 1971 and 1972.

There has been patchy coverage of the roughly 200,000 Biharis living in refugee camps post-1971, who want to move to a Pakistan which is no longer willing to accept them. But news media in general and non-news media in particular have devoted little attention to the paradoxical plight of those Bihari East Pakistanis who genuinely loved the land and the people they had adopted. Many of them condemned the postponement of the National Assembly session by General Yahya Khan on March 1, 1971. They were grieved by the use of excessive military force against the Awami League onwards of March 25, 1971. And they did not support the pro-Pakistan militias that were pitched against the Bengali militias.

When these innocent, non-combatant Biharis and other Urdu-speaking residents of East Pakistan began to be indiscriminately targeted by Bengali Awami League extremists to settle scores against General Yahya Khan’s policies and the actions initiated by General Tikka Khan, tens of thousands of these persons became victims overnight at the hands of fellow countrymen. Suddenly, there was no room for them in the place where they had fondly made their home.

This novel of unadorned sincerity is a significant contribution towards redressing the paucity of literature on these facets of history. Despite its fictional format, the pivotal points of the story are thoroughly factual. Though the principal characters of the young woman Suri, her parents, siblings and the young Bengali man who loves her are imaginary, their identities are clearly rooted in reality. So are the specific episodes of cruelty and callousness suffered by them and others at the hands of extremist Bengalis retaliating for the atrocities — both actual and construed — committed by officers and soldiers of the Pakistan Army.

Writing with an intimate familiarity that is obviously shaped by an autobiographical perspective, Ismail observes the beauty, colours and fragrances of Bangladesh with deep sensitivity. The first paragraph of the book delightfully captures virtually all the senses: from the white shades of shefali flowers to the scent of raat-ki-raani, from monsoon rains to the flutter of butterflies. She sustains her special eye for detail throughout: from glowing fire-flies by the Padma river at dusk to the world’s longest unbroken beach at Cox’s Bazaar, from orange-yellow marigolds to the sacred red of martyrs’ blood.

As the narrative and the pace build up to the tension, tears and trauma of the final pages, characters become vividly real — endearing, or, as the case may be, menacing and repellent in their actions. The intra-family relationships, quirks and twists and all, are well-drawn. The novel powerfully conveys the agony of a peaceful family that genuinely cherishes ‘sonar Bangla’ sliding into the horror of becoming refugees and prisoners.

What weakens the novel is the depiction of the relationship between Suri and Rumi. While it is symbolic and moving, it is not amplified to its potential depth. In contrast to the engaging passages that set the scenes so well, the dialogue tends to be simplistic and literal.

Though instances of brutalities committed during the Army action in 1971 are part of the record, the claim of an order being given by the generals “to kill three million Bengalis” and the sweeping charges of a full-scale genocide are a gross exaggeration. The meticulously researched book Dead Reckoning by Sarmila Bose conclusively established how an entirely false charge has become part of a global narrative that unjustly maligns the name of Pakistan and its Army.

Of Martyrs and Marigolds is a novel and not factual history. But, because its story is so inextricably a part of actual events, there are some sections of the novel where this reviewer is of the opinion that the author should not have reproduced without question the fabricated accusations of  wholesale, indiscriminate massacres. Every human life is sacrosanct and there can be no justification for the killing of innocent people. But is not the whole truth also sacred?

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, May 6^th, 2012.

Unlike self-regulation which is intra-sectoral, and state regulation which is mandatory, social monitoring should begin and proceed with a willing, active two-way participation by both civil society groups and the media themselves.

However, if media do not cooperate in some aspects, monitoring groups should not be deterred from the aim and action of analysing media’s policies, conduct and content. While media are plentiful in number, already formally organised, well-resourced entities vigilantly guarding their interests and freedoms, civil society groups specifically focused on media are  very few in number and are comparatively, severely under-resourced. They are often, if not wholly, dependent on funding by overseas donor foundations.

The scope for social monitoring can be both precise and fuzzy. For instance, because governments and  official regulatory bodies are often reluctant to caution or take punitive action against media because of being instantly accused of curbing ‘freedom of expression’, social monitoring forums can determine when media are breaching  laws, rules, regulations — and getting away with such disregard. Subjects that would come under such purview include unsubstantiated accusations of corruption or misdemeanour against public figures normally made through sweeping statements by both guests and hosts of talk shows, as well as excessively long advertisement breaks between programmes.

Another aspect of social monitoring could be calls by civil society for coverage of public interest issues, as well as coverage of examples of excellence and integrity, both in the official and non-official sectors of education, healthcare, utilities, etc. These rarely receive adequate attention of the media.

Yet another dimension of social monitoring could be to inform the public of possible conflicts-of-interest in the media sector. When proprietors of media also own or co-own manufacturing units or service companies or agricultural holdings, or have covert alignments with political or financial elements, the public deserves to know whether the nature of coverage given by those particular media is influenced by such other interests.

Greater transparency is also needed in data about the mass media. The actual number of copies of a newspaper — printed and sold — is required to be published by the newspaper itself in several countries, but not in Pakistan. Transparency regarding the consequences arising from the advent of media-buying houses, which purchase space and time in bulk for advertisers, is also needed: what is the impact on rates, costs and volumes devoted to commercial advertisements in preference to news or analytic comment?

Information about the influence of audience-measuring agencies on shaping primetime content and on ‘dumbing down’ standards to reach the highest numbers with the lowest common denominators, and other similar factors, is also needed. While monitoring this aspect, the line between sharing information that is in the public interest, and the right to privacy of media should be respected.

When I — in a voluntary work capacity — initiated the formation of the Citizens’ Media Commission of Pakistan (CMCP) in 1997, to the best of my knowledge, that was the first forum of its kind in Pakistan. It was independent from the government, media and commercial corporations. The intent was to provide a perspective on media issues from a purely public interest perspective. The CMCP started off its activities by observing the Electronic Media Freedom Day on February 14 every year by demanding the freedom to operate private electronic media channels. It conducted regular activities across Pakistan for eight years that included the publication of analytical reports and recommendations for reform of the government’s media policies and media’s own policies and practices. The CMCP sustained its advocacy activism for several years and can rightly claim credit for being a catalyst for the enforcement of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, while being unable to end state control of PTV/PBC (even during my tenure in the cabinet of former president Pervez Musharraf!). However, the forum did not maintain its active status after 2005 for various reasons, including my unwillingness to indefinitely continue shouldering the task of leadership. One wanted  others to take over, but ultimately, no one was willing to do so.

The CMCP’s experience illustrates the need for any civil society body specifically focused on the media to ensure at least three elements:

First, the body must have a group of citizens who care deeply enough about the subject to continue giving time and resources to the cause for several years.

Second, the body must use the Internet through a dedicated website to disseminate results of monitoring and analyses of media content to prevent any dependence on mass media for the projection of the findings. Though this may restrict the body’s ability to reach the audiences of mass media, Internet provides an effective beginning.

Third, the body must build networks and coalitions with civil society groups specialising in other subjects in order to mobilise broader participation in the process.

The basic aim of social monitoring of media must remain to strengthen the integrity, balance, quality and freedom of media.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 23^rd, 2012.

The media sector is possibly the single most complex and challenging sector to regulate.

In contrast, regulation and verification of drug quality deals with physically tangible products whose ingredients can be precisely measured.  Whereas media deal with intangible material which primarily affects the mind, the great invisible, immeasurable unknown.

A notable part of what is presented as news is speculative and under-researched. A significant portion of views is skewed and prejudiced. When news and views are mixed together as they increasingly are, the blend becomes a sticky, indistinguishable mess.

Just as the claim to patriotism is said to be the first refuge of the scoundrel, the claim of threats to freedom of expression is the first refuge of the news media.

The media in general, and non-news media in particular, bring us enormous wealth of valuable information and enjoyable entertainment. Though the media is often referred to in the singular, the word and the diversity it represents is thoroughly plural. Each mass medium — print, radio, TV, cinema — has its own characteristics. Regulation requires specificity about such individual features.

There are two broad aspects of regulation. One is the grant of permission by the state to own and operate a mass medium.

Relatively, this is quite straightforward even though in actual implementation, law and policy should navigate carefully to avoid creating undue concentration of media power by allowing unchecked cross-media ownership. Or, by auctioning licences to the highest bidders, thus promoting wealth rather than public service as a core criterion.

The other aspect is regulation of media content. The content of news media, hard news as also current affairs  programmes is of special concern. This is far more complicated than licencing. Several factors shape content. In recent years, viewership ratings agencies in the case of TV,  and media buying houses which purchase large blocks of time and space to deliver optimal benefits to advertiser-clients have become powerful new influences on shaping media content. Yet they remain virtually invisible to public scrutiny and accountability in terms of the public interest as distinct from the commercial interests they serve.

While the grant of permits and licences is an inescapable state responsibility, the determination of which content violates laws, codes, norms and parameters is rife with multiple interpretations and prone to dissent.  Most sensitive of all is the question of which entity has the moral right to determine boundaries. Almost all the factors that shape media content are fluid and volatile, not fixed and static.

This variability and unpredictability causes further complications.

Rapid changes and uncertainty sweeping the world also shake the durability of legal frameworks which, in any case, are normally some steps behind reality. Pakistan itself is going through a process of extensive social, cultural, economic and political turbulence.

New media such as the participative Internet and new modes of content distribution such as the cell-phone have emerged as fast-growing parallel means of sharing information and entertainment on a mass scale to end the monopoly of monolithic mass media disseminating tightly-controlled content.

A fusion of three categories of regulation would be the ideal blend. The first is self-regulation by members of the media themselves. But as experience has shown, this will be effective only if the administration of such self-regulation is conducted on their behalf by independent professionals of acknowledged integrity such as the laudable inititative taken in Pakistan by this newspaper by the appointment of an eminent person as the newspaper’s ombudsman.

Otherwise, self-regulation becomes a cover for protecting self-interest.

And making excuses for frequent lapses.

The second category is inevitably state regulation through legislation that is fully debated and informed by extensive consultation with civil society, media specialists and journalists. Reform of existing laws and rules, the need for entirely new concepts and forms are long overdue in Pakistan. Now that PEMRA and the PTA have completed over about a decade, there is scope to examine their improvements and the inter-face between them.

Even though the Press Council has finally been established, much work is required to make its output purposeful.

The third category is the most formidable. And perhaps this is why it is virtually non-existent in Pakistan, along with elsewhere as well. And yet it is also the most needed. This is social regulation. By which the interests of the public, and not the interests of media owners, advertisers, journalists or governments are given the highest priority. Without allowing extremist forces to use violence or threats a hazard requiring eternal preventive action — social regulation  has the potential to be the most progressive influence for fair, balanced media content and an equitable media system. To an extent, state regulation represents aspects of social regulation. But the power-authority feature of the state can sometimes distort the benign yet firm purist public interest perspective which social regulation alone symbolises. Details on another occasion soon!

Published in The Express Tribune, February 24^th, 2012.

Parties and numbers, the two facets of electoral politics which are considered indispensable, are also invidious. If freedom of choice amongst political parties is an essence of democracy, partisanship on the basis of parties is a poison of democracy. Such partisanship may not be a fatal poison but it certainly has the capacity to paralyse. Both the Lok Sabha in India and the US Congress have often been at a standstill during 2011 due to an acrimonious confrontation. And if the number of votes obtained is essential to determine success, one winner and many losers rarely represent the true picture in a given constituency or country.

The party-based system is deemed the only way to enable coherent representation of different viewpoints, ideologies, features and interests that exist in society. Yet while parties draw people together, they also drive people apart. Divergent perceptions become divisive schisms.

Despite divergences in policies being marginal or even non-existent, it is the personalities of leaders, their own individual or dynastic ambitions and egos that promote a false sense of differences with other parties — whereas, in actual fact, few differences exist.

Even where variations between parties are distinct as in the case of ethnicity or language-based parties, the polarisation reinforces and strengthens separation because the very survival of such parties largely depends on sustaining and heightening the differences.

In cases where parties have sharply defined and instantly distinct political ideologies, the maintenance of the separate and special identity is central to the very survival of the party. The net result of the existence of more than one political party is the deepening of divisions — which is not to suggest that only a monolithic single-party system is preferable or better than a pluralist multi-party system! It is only to underline the fact that political parties tend to intensify discord between human beings, not to dilute or remove it, as ideals urge us to do.

Existing in conditions which already contain inherent diversities of race or language or religion or sect or class, most parties sharpen these already-strong lines.

Yet, to their credit, parties occasionally rise above inherited or man-made walls. They sometimes unanimously adopt fundamental frameworks such as the 1973 Constitution and the 18th Amendment. Parties also often work together in election alliances or in government coalitions while continuing un-changed with their respective individual identities. Where such flexibility may, in certain instances be seen as opportunism, the willingness to compromise reflects the remarkable quality of adaptation possessed by political parties as a particular type of social organisation.

As numbers rule in elections, the candidate who gets the most votes in a constituency in a single round and the party winning the most seats in a general election become the winners or the rulers. This is an absurdity of the first-past-the-post system as it exists in Pakistan, and elsewhere. In a constituency, the losing candidates may together secure more votes than the single winning candidate. Yet the losers remain entirely un-represented. The absurdity is compounded by the tendency of less than 50 per cent of voters to cast their votes. And this means that a winning candidate or a winning party neither represents the majority of those who voted nor do the winners represent the majority of registered voters. But the winners, in spite of being non-representative of the majority, carry on for five years — or until the next election, sanctified by an utterly irrational, unfair electoral method.

Whether through the introduction of a second or third round of polling till a candidate obtains 51 per cent of the votes cast or the registered vote, or by the adoption of compulsory voting as is the case in about 35 countries, there is a glaring need for reform of electoral processes.

The intrinsic paradox remains of political parties being unavoidable in democracy while at the same time, party-based partisanship contaminating the political process. Therefore, there is scope for exploration in political philosophy of new concepts as well as practical pilot-scale experiments to examine possible alternatives and improvements to make electoral democracy less conflictual and more representative of public opinion.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 30^th, 2011.