A young student of Urdu University asked me at a seminar on World Press Freedom Day if there should be any limit to Press freedom. Another one inquired is press freedom possible without independent judiciary?
Let's examine these two questions. The issue of limiting press freedom through media specific laws is often raised by the people who are either from the privileged ruling classes or are still not ready to accept the democratic values. Freedom of press flows from freedom of expression which in turn is only possible in a democratic society. It is therefore important to understand that freedom of press is not just the cause of the journalists and media owners alone, it is an essential prerequisite of a democratic society as it includes the right of people to express themselves through any medium of communication such as speech, writings, painting, drama, film etc.
The problem with specific laws limiting freedom of expression leads to two questions: Who will draw the boundaries? Who will enforce these laws? The experience shows that such laws are often exploited by the governments and other powerful segments of the ruling classes. I was of the opinion that no such limits should be placed as the normal defamation, damage compensation laws do exist to take on any person who crosses the boundaries of decency or indulges in false allegations.
It is then asked what about the issues which incite people to take law in their hand. There too we have laws. A person's right to challenge and discuss any ideology, philosophy and religion through the available channels of communications should be respected. Curbing such debates in the name of religion, national integrity, traditional values through specific laws is against the spirit of democracy. No country can claim that it has a free media, when the people are not allowed to express through it their divergent views on the issues of life.
It is true that years of struggle by the journalists, civil society and democratic forces has forced the ruling establishment of Pakistan to give more free space to the media. Particularly allowing private sector to set up their own television channels has changed not only the media scene of Pakistan but has also made politicians and the establishment accountable to people more than ever.
For some silly reasons however the previous government was hesitant to allow private sector radio to cover current affairs and news, though they are now free to broadcast entertainment and religious programmes. However some reports are trickling in that some channels have been allowed to use BBC news bulletin now. That is a good omen.
Print media is by and large free when it comes to the government. Usual practice is that if the government does not like anybody it cuts down on the government ads to that publication. So far to be fair the new government has not used the advertisement whip, though privately some leaders of the ruling coalition are itching to crack down on at least one media group for pressuring them on restoration of the judiciary issue.
But this is just one side of the picture. The governments are becoming more tolerant in developing societies because of the rise of the democratic forces internally, foreign pressures and emergence of technology which cannot be tamed.
The rising threat to freedom of expressions are the limits imposed on different power groups such as extremist religious and ethnic groups, fascistic political parties, crime world, tribal and landed class goons and big business advertising clout, owners marketing interests.
Many journalists have been killed in FATA area covering the Taliban conflict with the army. In Sindh journalists who reported excesses of the big landlords and tribal leaders have been killed or implicated in false cases. In Balochistan journalists are intimidated by the nationalist militants and the intelligence agencies.
Now to the second question: Whether freedom of press is possible without free judiciary? There is no doubt that freedom of both the institutions of the society is interdependent. In fact the issue is that democracy cannot be compartmentalised. A democratic society has its own ecology, tempering with one element disturbs the whole. We are experiencing this aren't we? When the executive clamped down on judiciary the media rose to defend it as much as the legal fraternity.
Besides all the talk about glorious constitutional principles, both the legal fraternity and media has vested interest to protect each other. The lawyers know that if the people's faith in judiciary is shattered they will not come to them to seek redress to their grievances. The media knows that when their freedom comes under threat like it did after the 3rd November clamp down; only independent judiciary can protect their fundamental rights.
My friend Zamir Niazi has summed it up well in his first book 'Press in Chains' laying emphasis on free debate: "The whole argument boils down to the fact that it is in man's nature to debate, disagree and dissent and dare the forces of falsehood and tyranny. There is only one place in the world where there is neither debate nor dissent and that is the graveyard."
(ayazbabar@gmail.com)