IT could not have been more bizarre: the government is taking its war against social media to a new level. After banning X, the government now seeks to restrict the use of VPN (Virtual Private Networks).
To do so, it has gone to the extent of obtaining a fatwa from the Council of Islamic Ideology, which initially termed the use of the network ‘un-Islamic’.
The statement by the head of the CII came the same day as the remarks made by the army chief at an Islamabad-based research institute that “Unrestricted freedom of speech is leading to the degradation of moral values in all societies”. The army chief also called for the enforcement of “comprehensive laws and regulations” to stop what has been referred to as “digital terrorism” by those who hold the reins of power.
Although it is not unusual for senior establishment figures in Pakistan to delve into policy matters, such comments on regulating freedom of speech give cause for concern, especially in a country that is already witnessing increasing curbs not only on social media platforms but also on mainstream media. The government’s move to downgrade internet services and restrict the use of VPNs seems to be a part of the effort to stifle freedom of expression and to prevent access to information.
What is most alarming is that all such restrictions are being enforced in the name of national security. It leaves us wondering how the country can be made a safer place by shutting down social media and curbing the freedom of expression. It may be true that social media is also being used for negative propaganda and to spread fake news. But how does that threaten our national security? If anything, it is restrictions on democratic and media freedoms that make the country more insecure.
There is no denying that social media campaigns against the security forces have heightened over the past few years. But our leadership has yet to understand that this is a reflection of the existing tensions caused by the narrowing of democratic space and greater involvement of non-political forces in political power games. Instead of addressing the public’s growing disenchantment with the existing system, the leadership has responded with more stringent measures to stifle dissent.
The move to control mainstream media was bound to give greater space to social media platforms. Notwithstanding its negative side, it’s a fact that people now trust social media more, with a large section of the mainstream media losing its credibility in the eyes of the public.
Installing firewalls and limiting digital services will not help resolve the crisis the state faces.
Stringent regulatory measures and attempts to further curtail freedom of expression will only push the public to rely more on social media to access information as well as voice their views. Given the massive advancement in information technology, it will be hard for the state to completely control this platform, despite attempts to install a firewall whose cost is estimated to be in billions of rupees. The only way to counter fake news and negative propaganda is to restore democratic rights and remove restrictions on freedom of expression.
It might be true that social media has become a major venue for anti-establishment views over the past few years. But to simply term them as ‘enemy-sponsored propaganda against the state’ is to overlook the increasing public concern over the involvement of non-political forces in civilian affairs.
More distressing is the growing public alienation in insurgency-infested areas, despite the large number of casualties suffered by the security forces. It is also a fact that social media has now become a venue for protest particularly among young people seeking to change the status quo. Any repressive measure is bound to widen their alienation. This is the lesson of history that our civil and military leadership have yet to learn.
It is not anyone’s job to judge society’s moral values or for those outside the civilian sphere to talk about regulating freedom of expression. Instead, those in the security sphere should focus more on the grave security challenges the country is facing, which is crucial to winning and maintaining the public’s trust.
Blaming social media for all evils is not going to help tackle what is clearly an existentialist threat. The situation is further compounded by the fact that KP and Balochistan, both strategically important provinces, are caught in the midst of insurgencies, which are by far the biggest threat to national security today.
There has been a marked upsurge in the number of terrorist attacks in recent months, with growing political instability in the country and the weakening of local administrations in the two provinces. Nothing could be worse for the leadership of a country in the throes of a conflict than to lose the trust of its own people. In this situation, it has become imperative for the civil and military leadership to restore political stability in the country. Setting up firewalls and restricting digital services will not help resolve the crisis that the state faces.
It is not just about the political aspects but also the economic costs of internet disruptions. The damage to the economy could be devastating. According to an IT firm, internet restrictions and the firewall could inflict “devastating financial losses estimated to reach $300 million, which can further increase exponentially”. Other restrictions on online services can exacerbate the crisis.
Access to X has been blocked since the time of the elections in February and more restrictions could come with the opposition PTI threatening to storm the capital to increase pressure on the coalition government.
The confrontation is likely to escalate, with no sign of any side relenting. More restrictions on freedom of expression and curbs on social media would only worsen the situation. The government’s actions are pushing the country into a war with itself.
The writer is an author and journalist.
X: @hidhussain
Published in Dawn, November 20th, 2024
