- The first step in crushing dissent is to tame the press
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
–Martin Niemöller
Martin Niemöller was a Lutheran clergyman who at first supported Adolf Hitler, because he was against the Communists. And Hitler not only opposed the Communists, but the socialists, the trade unionists, and finally the Jews. Well, not finally, for ultimately Niemöller had problems with how Hitler and the Nazi Party were placing the state ahead of religion. And he was arrested in 1936, after he had become the leader of a group of anti-Nazi clergymen. He was kept in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps until freed by the Allies in 1945.
Though he was a Lutheran, his poem resounded with Jews, especially Jews who had been in the Holocaust. His poem is seen as encapsulating the betrayal of the German people which made the Holocaust possible.
Omitted from the poem is how the press suffered. Quite apart from the specialised presses which serviced the target groups, Niemöller did not bring out how silence, even complicity, in the mainstream press was required to make sure that the silence was maintained. It should not be forgotten that the Holocaust was only one aspect of Nazi Germany. Another aspect was the popularity of the Nazi Party. It must never be forgotten that it was elected, and retained at least some of its popularity right to the last.
One of the essential components of the democracy that brought the PTI to office was a free press, which showed and reported the container speeches freely. The free reporting of attempts to stop the dharna also helped Imran. But it is perhaps the knowledge of the role the press played in bringing it to power, is what makes the PTI so adamant in wanting to make sure that it never happens again
Now how is this relevant in Naya Pakistan? Is it not simply building on the Musharraf regime, which under the motto ‘Sub se pehlay Pakistan’ granted unprecedented freedom to the media, especially the electronic, resulting in an efflorescence not seen under elected governments?
However, there are some things which indicate that this freedom is proving unwelcome in some ruling quarters. The assertiveness of the judiciary has been a cause. Civil servants have realized that doing nothing cannot be punished. However, any action, no matter how transparently honest and eminently suitable, can be faulted for some obscure reason. Therefore, civil servants do not want even non-existent mud thrown up. Another thing that freedom of press means is that public figures are embarrassed, and that they do not like. It is not as if the press engages in exposing private lives. Embarrassment may be caused by public knowledge of what has been done.
In a way, that moves the media ahead of the charges of corruption which have been levied against particular persons, onto what might be described as abuse of power. Abuse of power has led to forced disappearances, for example, and those officials who made those disappearances happen do not want them exposed to the public gaze. Officials learn to expect a certain degree of respect commensurate with their rank, and do not like being exposed to ridicule, which is what happens when they do something below their dignity. Once, exposure was only in a description. Now, it could be in living colour.
Perhaps that is why the PM’s Special Assistant on Information, Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan, has proposed media courts. The proposal itself was not clear. There was a court hearing involved in the old RPPO for any suspension of a newspaper’s declaration, but after its replacement by the RPPPO, with its making declarations automatically granted, even that function became redundant.
Presumably the courts are supposed to deal with libel cases, both civil and criminal. At present, such cases go before normal civil or criminal courts, and there has not been such a burden on them because of such cases that special courts are needed. The cases of media workers not receiving salaries have also been mentioned. That makes it nightmarish, for those cases go to specialised labour courts. Labour law is so specialised that postgraduate diploma courses have been developed.
The press has long opposed special courts, as well as special laws. However, if all it is supposed to do is provide a chorus of praise, so that those opposing the present government find no place where they can express their views, it seems one move. The present government does not want to curb the press because it is evil or wrongheaded, but to keep the accountability drive going.
It need not be assumed, but it is, that anyone opposing the government is supporting the previous one, and is supporting corrupt elements, neither because the present government is mismanaging things or because they have been fooled, but because they too are corrupt, and benefit from the proceeds of corruption. According to this view, Imran Khan can do no wrong. Therefore, even criticism is criminal. Allowing criminals to put across their point of view is also a crime.
One comes again to Lenin, who justified the Communist takeover of the government, even though it only won 25 percent of the vote in the Constituent Assembly (which never met), as a refusal to wait for a ‘formal majority’. That takeover also resulted in the press having to fall into line.
Though the system of the press advice and the press note have fallen into disuse as formal tools, things still happen. The most egregious recent instances were the pulling of the interviews, first of PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari and then of PML(N) VP Maryam Nawaz, just after their telecast had begun.
Prime Minister Imran Khan has probably got to meet world leaders of all kinds, but two stand out: Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, who has still not been cleared of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and US President Donald Trump, who himself has engaged in rants against the US press. They are not the best examples of how leaders are supposed to behave towards the press.
One of the essential components of the democracy that brought the PTI to office was a free press, which showed and reported the container speeches freely. The free reporting of attempts to stop the dharna also helped Imran. But it is perhaps the knowledge of the role the press played in bringing it to power, is what makes the PTI so adamant in wanting to make sure that never happens again.
