How to Improve Pakistan's Image?

Dawn, July 20, 2006
Creating a good image
By Dr Tariq Rahman

GOVERNMENTS seem to believe that the image of a country is created by either having a press which does not report anything negative or by an efficient advertisement lobby.

Journalists and academics, as well as other articulate members of civil society, can be charged with treason if they report the truth or even their own opinions. Conversely, if they lavish praise on every government policy they are called patriotic.

Those in the advertisement and public relations business assiduously cultivate foreign politicians, journalists, academics and other prominent people. These, in turn, become a kind of lobby or pressure group which helps to boost the image of the country.

The lobby works well, provided the country has not flouted international norms and opinions too flagrantly. A few deviations here and there are explained away by spin doctors and cracks are papered over by cash. But if the country trips every time it takes a step, it does not have an “image problem”. It is plain bad — the reality, not the image.

The establishment in Pakistan, however, feels that journalists need to be bribed or tamed. It also feels that spending millions on gifts for foreign decision-makers and lobbyists is enough. It is not enough. Even more wrongly, and dangerously, the establishment feels that it is dissenting journalists, columnists, academics, NGOs and rights activists who give the country a bad image.

This is wrong because all such people give the government a good name simply by existing. It is because of their writings, critical as they are, that Pakistan is said to have a fairly free press. It is this which makes military rule almost like flawed civilian democracy in the eyes of most foreign observers and Pakistanis themselves. One often finds foreigners coming across a report in the English-language press and exclaiming with amazement and admiration that they did not expect this under military rule in a Third World country.

So, the liberal press actually works to give Pakistan a good image. However, there are people in the administration who do not seem to be aware of this. Recently, they have started tarnishing the image of the country by attacking journalists. If journalists are found dead or if they disappear, the government cannot pretend to be anywhere close to a democracy of any kind. It is true that many governments around the world have frequently resorted to muffling the press in their country but they have not earned respect for doing so.

Admittedly, in Pakistan state-sponsored attacks on the press are fewer when compared to regimes such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or North Korea. But they should not be there at all. It is a question of principle. Even the slightest deviation from the accepted norms of political behaviour can give the country a bad image. Moreover, once illegal practices are condoned they threaten to become the norm.

Guantanamo Bay is an example of how the American justice system has been corrupted. If the US now has a bad image, it is because of a reality that is grim and not because it cannot invest enough in individuals and groups to enhance its image. This is not to say that it does not have a loyal press. Indeed, the failing of the American press is that, whether embedded or otherwise, it is prone to toeing the government line. This gives it far less credibility than the British press.

So, if the present regime in Pakistan really wants a good image it must dismantle all apparatuses and extra-legal powers which deviate from the spirit and the letter of the law in matters concerning the life and liberty of its citizens. If it wants an even better image, it should prevent any intrusions into Indian-held Kashmir and invite the United Nations observers to certify that Pakistan really wants peace with India, thus forcing India to either demilitarise Kashmir — as Pakistan rightly demands — or face international embarrassment.

An even better image will come from a declaration by General Musharraf that he will contest the elections as a civilian presidential candidate in accordance with the spirit of the 1973 Constitution. This will make him popular and provide him with exit strategies which are not open to him at the moment.

For good measure, he can deal legally with the reported corruption of the sugar mafia, the perceived misconduct of his military colleagues in locomotive deals and the charges of over-spending and buying luxury items by those in government. Doing all this will make him popular and, therefore, less dependent on any one lobby for votes.

It is true that such steps may backfire simply because the lobbies which will lose are so powerful that General Musharraf may face electoral defeat. However, it will be safer and more honourable for him to find an exit now than to be further embroiled in appeasing lobbies which will make him increasingly unpopular. Moreover, the country will certainly benefit if there is a resulting good image. It will achieve moral clout and, possibly, more investment of the kind which will create employment.

An even better image will be created by looking at the redistribution of wealth and the human cost of globalisation with regard to the current privatisation policies and the withdrawal of subsidies. At the moment, poor people are losing their jobs while those heading organisations have fabulous salaries that are contributing to a rising sense of anger and a feeling of being cheated among those who are poor. Moreover, as the irregularities of privatisation are exposed, this anger spreads to the articulate middle class, making people feel that the country is a banana republic whose functionaries are bent upon robbing it and that its assets are being sold for a song. Can something be done about this reality that is creating a bad image.

The conflict in Balochistan and Waziristan also give a bad image to the country. Whatever the reality, the common perception is that the government has been less than sensitive in Balochistan. A more conciliatory attitude along with real justice in the distribution of resources and power will certainly produce good results. But this will mean talking to the Baloch and maybe a new deal in both Gwadar and Sui.

As for Waziristan, this is seen as America’s war and the immediate reaction of increasing troops after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit seems to strengthen this perception. The government should explain clearly and with the help of neutral journalists that this is Pakistan’s war. It should adopt a consistent policy towards religious extremism and violence and not use the religious lobby for any of its purposes. It should also eliminate extremist messages from its textbooks and media. Then maybe its claims will be credible. Otherwise, they will be taken as justifications for one of America’s wars.

In short, sound policies are not only good in themselves. They are also good because, at the end of the day, they strengthen the state and make its citizens safer from the tyranny of both the state’s functionaries and foreign exploiters.