This post about election security was published by Pakistan Today back in 2013. After the tragic death of ANP leader Haroon Bilour in a suicide attack, who was among the politicians whose security was taken away on orders of Chief Justice Saqib Nisar, we feel it is now more relevant than ever.
When it comes to the media, the odds are stacked against the ANP. First, the party, like the PPP, does not appeal to the socio-economic class that the journalists belong to. Second, it is a regional party, where the media does not have too much of a presence. Third, the party, a continuation of the Congress, does not bode well with the Nawa-e-Waqt indoctrinated minds of those occupying senior positions in the media.
That is all well and good. Matters are made inconvenient whenever the ANP shows huge amounts of the stuff heroes are made out of. 
So, to segue into the issue at hand: how do the pundits cover such events? One way is to remain objective. But the problem with objectivity is that the ANP is, by strictly objective standards, displaying immense courage, regardless of what one might think of their ideology or their performance in government. A consequence of that is that objective comment turns out to be platitudes and praise.
Given the visceral anti-politician instinct of the commentariat, praising politicians is viewed as a career destroyer by the pundits.
So, some pundits attempt to forcibly tone it down. This can’t be done without introducing a caustic element in the conversation and that is what we saw in Muhammad Mallick’s rather ham-fisted interview of party chief Asfandyar Wali Khan (Dunya News, 15th April.)
But if Mallick seemed insensitive, it was nothing compared to Javed Chaudhry’s crack (Express News, 15th April) at the subject of candidates’ security.
Uncle Sargam began with the usual pissing-from-a-height account that he usually starts with, recalling an incident from Moghul history that – if one was trying really hard, and had swallowed three packets of Ispaghol – was only tangentially relevant to the matter at hand.
But it was the rest of the programme where our man let it rip. Why the government should give you security, he asked the ANP’s Haji Adeel. What have you all done to deserve it?
Flabbergasted as Adeel might have been at a why-are-two-and-two-four question, he still tried to reason with the man. You (Express) have occupied a significant portion of the road (outside their office in the Aabpara Market) in the name of security. But we pay for that security, replies Chaudhry. You mean to say you pay for the road, Adeel asks back incredulously. Yes, we pay the CDA, Chaudhry replies. This is, of course, a lie. But since the last word is the pundits’ and there’s no holding them accountable, false assertions are water under the bridge.
In the US, the principal challenger in presidential elections is provided Secret Service security detail that stays with him till much after he or she concedes defeat. It is the responsibility of the state to provide security to rich and poor candidates alike. Romney got his security despite being a millionaire many, many times over.
By saying candidates should pay for their own security, pundits like Chaudhry are implying only the rich should be in politics. Rehmat Shah Saahil is the ANP’s candidate from NA-35 Malakand. He is a poet extraordinaire whose lyrics for popular songs have made him famous. And, since there isn’t much money in poetry, he is a professional tailor. Javed Chaudhry expected Saahil to pay for his security in the constituency contiguous to the one where Malala Yousufzai was shot.
It is said that the bourgeois class is the biggest impediment to social change. Scratch the populist veneer that the likes of Chaudhry and his other middle-class colleagues have carefully maintained and you’ll see a genuine distaste for the poor to begin with.