These are all valid observations; however, the information minister’s remarks do not address the subject of public opinion, use of digital platforms, and freedom of speech in their entirety. What the information minister said represents the top-down view about the issue. There is a bottom-up view as well, and unless both views are well considered and deliberated, we may not develop the desired synergy and the right sense of purpose to address a critical problem faced by our country.
Public opinion is all about ideas, and in every idea lies a story of a person, a moment, or a place in time. When I think about the idea of Pakistan, the one big idea that dwarfs all others is Pakistan becoming a modern democratic welfare state.
A variety of people have a variety of abstract thoughts about what to make of Pakistan and its future, but the job of translating those abstract thoughts into reality and tangible outcomes is the job of the government of the day. Public opinion serves as a vital check on any political power that leads to the process of executing these ideas. It is in the nature of public opinion to support, shape or challenge a given political authority, and in the words of the famous historian and political scientist, John Locke, it is also in the nature of any political authority to either respect or disrespect people’s basic needs and rights.
When governments withhold the public’s essential needs for survival and disrespect their rights, then public opinion quickly erodes and no more remains government-friendly and transforms from passive acceptance into active opposition. Currently, the bottom-up view of public opinion in Pakistan is based on this reality, and whether the government likes it or not, it is manifesting itself in the repeated calls for protests, reforms and regime change by the opposition.
The bottom-up view about how the public thinks about the use of social media on various digital platforms is also important. Modern technology is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it has empowered people to share even their unsolicited views on social media; on the other hand, it has also become a tool for the creation, maintenance and expansion of totalitarian governments.
Technology itself is not inherently good or bad; it depends on how it is used. Social platforms that allow public empowerment must not be used to spread fake news and disinformation, but any government mechanism to prevent this should not be oppressive and totalitarian.
The government must seek the right answer to the question of not how people make use of social platforms to express their opinion, but why they do it. The public respects the government’s idea of maintenance of dignity and respect while using social media platforms, but it is when their dignity, freedom and respect are undermined that we witness this constant pull and push between citizens seeking freedom and the government seeking order and control.
Bottom-up, people look at the use of the same social media platforms by the government as a means to impose surveillance, censorship and information control – aspects that are the hallmarks of not a democracy but totalitarian governments. Bottom-up, people view social media management and control by the government as a tool to manipulate public opinion, suppress dissent and usurp and consolidate power.
To create the right balance, the government must submit to a historical fact that public opinion is a powerful force and governments all over the world deliver or fail to deliver under the will of the people and the moral pressure they exercise with their opinion. All governments are ultimately answerable to people, and public opinion is a pressure that even forces reluctant leaders to act responsibly. Laws must be made to criminalise anti-state speech, proliferation of fake news and misinformation but such laws should not be used to suppress legitimate criticism.
There is enough political space for debate on how an enabling social media environment can be created for effective use both by the people and the government – an environment in which the government must carefully balance its role of regulating, educating and collaborating with people in upholding dignity and respect on social media without undermining freedom of expression. Hate speech, defamation, incitement to violence and harassment must be penalised, but should never create an impression of political victimisation.
Information is anything that is used to discover truth, and no matter how truthful an account it cannot represent a reality in all its aspects. Access to alternative viewpoints creates a diverse society. It is like a person or a society to seek truth, and end of the day, like any government, social media platforms also build or lose their reputation based on how they stand for or against truth.
I am reminded of a statement by Robert Cecil, a prominent British politician, diplomat and lawyer. He was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1937 for his efforts in international diplomacy and peace. He famously said, “The great weapon we rely upon is public opinion… and if we are wrong about it, then the whole thing is wrong.” The freedom to speak is not just the right to talk, but it is the power to question, to challenge, and to change; and if the idea of Pakistan is to become a modern democratic welfare state, then we must carefully view the subject of public opinion both from top-down and bottom-up perspectives.