The News, August 11, 2006
Civil activism, media and the judiciary
By Shafqat Mahmood
The writer is a former member of parliament and a freelance columnist based in Lahore
Some things are beginning to change in this country. Greater activism is visible now among non governmental groups and the media whether the concern is the environment or human rights or the political direction of the country. The Lahore Bachao Tehreek with the help of the media has done a fantastic job in raising public awareness against the cutting of trees on the Lahore Canal. It has given the government a pause and some efforts are afoot to have another look at the plan and satisfy the stakeholders.
Women groups have been pushing hard for changes in the Hudood laws and their pressure is having an impact though the government once again seems to be running backwards. This is a familiar pattern and not the first time that General Musharraf has raised expectations and then done an about face. Perhaps he thinks the political timing is not right but then it will never be. If something is worth doing it should be done irrespective of the difficulties.
The letter written by a group of citizens, including this writer, to General Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz and senior political leaders is another example of civil society activism. It had an impact because of the diverse nature of signatories that included retired senior military officers, active and inactive politicians, academics, and media people. Almost every newspaper and TV channel took note of it and although some focused on shooting the messengers, it had a small but perceptible impact on public opinion.
The media has also come into its own in not only exposing various shenanigans in high places but by leading campaigns on social issues. On Hudood laws, GEO did a tremendous job in getting a wide spectrum of individuals including religious scholars, lawyers, women activists and others to discuss the issue threadbare. It had the effect of preparing public opinion for changes in the Hudood laws but alas, the government seems to have chickened out again.
On environmental issues, violence against women, lack of adequate civic facilities and myriad other issues, the media continues to play an active and important role. On a recent visit to India, I noticed that our press is far more critical and direct in holding our leadership to account than the Indian media. It seemed more measured and careful and perhaps too respectful of its political leaders. Not here. No wonder our government is planning a media strategy to 'butter up' thirty odd writers because nothing else seems to be working.
The one area though where our media has either been hesitant or not sufficiently well versed to play an active role is regarding the judiciary. This occurs to me because the Supreme Court of Pakistan is hosting an international jurists' conference this Saturday and among other topics, it has also constituted a discussion forum on 'the role of media in the dispensation of justice'. Our apex court obviously believes that there is a correlation but is our media clued in on it?
An independent judiciary is essential towards building a civilised nation state, but, it must also be broadly accountable to the people. The media has to play a dual role in this context. It has to not only fight for the independence of the judiciary but it must also hold it accountable on behalf of the people. While it seeks judicial activism on social issues, the media must also have the capacity to analyse decisions of the higher courts and assess their impact on state and society. And, it must, and this is important, scrutinise the conduct of the judges to ensure that the institution lives up to its pristine image.
Given this rather limited framework, how well has the media in our country carried out this task? It has been fairly vocal in criticising judicial decisions that have in the past allowed dictatorships to flourish. The narrative is often picked up from the Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan case in the early fifties and carried on to judicial approval or sanction for various military regimes including that of Musharraf. What it has not done enough of is to understand or analyse the circumstances that created these anti-democratic decisions.
Quite often, there was either a personal grudge or a personal ambition involved. There was also the constant insecurity of being sacked as some judges were during the Zia and Musharraf period. In other words, there has been moral outrage in the media but not enough background to give the decisions a context. It is only when judges have themselves spoken out that there has been widespread comment. One example of this is the public response after retired Chief Justice Nasim Hasan Shah said that General Zia pressurised the judges during the hearing of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's case.
The one area where the media has generally not been up to the mark is in making an informed legal analysis of judicial decisions on non-political matters. There may be a capacity problem, because it requires some legal background and understanding of past precedents to make a knowledgeable comment, but there is also a visible reluctance to venture into this arena. One reason could be a lack of clear understanding of the contempt laws. There is an unspoken fear that if a critical comment is made it might attract the court's umbrage.
The fact is that discussing judicial decisions of the superior courts is essential because precedents are created that have an enormous impact on state and society. This is another definition of public interest and the media cannot and should not shy away from being its custodian. This is not contempt of court but public scrutiny which is necessary. If there is a capacity problem, it has to be overcome through specialisation. Many writers and broadcasters do it in other areas. It must be done in the legal sphere too.
A tricky area for the media is the personal conduct of superior court judges. Many stories circulate on the social circuit but seldom make it to the print and electronic media. This again is because of a fear of the contempt laws or a tradition of respect for the judges. The fact is that by becoming a part of any judiciary but particularly the superior judiciary, the individuals' concerned sign up to a higher expectation of probity and personal integrity than others. If there is a deviation, there should be comment and criticism and they have no right to take umbrage.
A classical example of this is regarding Justice Anthony Scalia of the US Supreme Court. He took a ride on Vice-President Dick Cheney's plane and went hunting with him. The US media took him to task because the government is party to many cases before the Supreme Court and he had no business to hobnob with the vice-president. No contempt notices were issued. Similar standards apply everywhere. If our judges err, they must also be held accountable.
Our judiciary and the media are evolving and the relationship will solidify over time. It is to the judiciary's credit that it recognises this and is ready for a public debate on the subject. The road to becoming a truly democratic state is long but there are hopeful signs that we may be on it.
Email: smahmood@lhr.comsats.net.pk
No comments:
Post a Comment