According to Isaac Asimov, "When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent."
Digital mob mentality is on the rise in Pakistan. It can be described as digital demagogues who start dehumanising, demonising, making edited videos, and sharing inappropriate or (sometimes) compromising pictures of politicians they dislike, subsequently becoming courts to issue sweeping statements and verdicts, which are detrimental to our social, moral, and political fabric.
Character assassination is one of the key components of digital mob mentality, which is deeply entrenched in our political fabric. Time and again, political bigwigs from across parties have used it as a tool to malign opponents. The failure of political leaders to train and restrain their followers results in such political garbage. For them, newsworthy isn’t important; being in the Facebook spotlight is the news. According to Arthur Schopenhauer, "If you want to reach a large audience, appeal to idiots." This typifies trends on social media networking sites like Facebook, WhatsApp, Messenger, TikTok, etc. While the anti-canal movement gained momentum, the so-called Facebook heroes, keyboard warriors, and self-proclaimed intellectuals sank to new lows by targeting political opponents. One is dismayed that even the educated were, are, and will likely be swept away by sensationalism and propaganda. Verifying the sources of any social media content and applying independent judgment can be challenging. Carl Jung is reputed to have said, “Thinking is difficult, that is why most people judge.” The problem is the poor and broken education system that fails to inculcate critical thinking skills among learners.
It must be acknowledged that political parties pursuing nationalist political narratives and those operating within a federal political framework are as different as chalk and cheese in terms of political theory and modus operandi. The nationalist and federalist lots knew well that the Cholistan canals and subsequent corporate farming project under the Green Pakistan Initiative (GPI) were projected by powerful players. Since angels fear to tread there, they thought it better to direct their guns against President Asif Ali Zardari, who had to retreat from his earlier endorsement of these canals while addressing the recent joint parliamentary sitting. Below-the-belt remarks were passed against the PPP leadership and the President, calling them traitors. Even female members were not spared. We occasionally see women politicians bearing the brunt of unnecessary digital backlash. Drawing inspiration, social media platforms were abuzz with poisonous content and propaganda. The PML-N played dirty politics during the canal conundrum in Sindh. Adding fuel to the fire, it tried to stoke the smouldering flames against the PPP leadership by sleeping on the contentious project, challenged in the Council of Common Interests (CCI) by the PPP-led Murad Ali Shah provincial government.
Tarnishing the image of the Bhuttos
Public office holders have no immunity from both accountability and public scrutiny. However, those criticising any public office holder or political opponents must convey their contention constructively rather than contemptuously. Personal attacks and derogatory tags against Zardari’s Presidency and the Bhuttos (unnecessarily denounced in the aftermath of canal politics) were so vile that sensible journalism demands not mentioning those volleys of vilification. On the back of canal politics, the PPP’s critics started vilifying Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Various social media posts began by calling ZAB a traitor and ended up targeting the present PPP leadership. These maligning machines, called sensationalists, never read—hence they never reference any book or political theory. Knowing the pulse of their readers, they think what they write is history. But history tells us that cognitive concoction is not history. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s achievements are significant and beyond the understanding of self-proclaimed intellectuals and narrow-minded commentators. Some of his notable achievements include:
- Bringing politics to the masses and giving them a political voice.
- Introducing the Constitution of 1973.
- Laying the foundation for atomic power and strengthening national security.
- Securing the release of around 90,000 prisoners of war from India.
- Bringing international recognition to the country after the devastating war and consequent break-up baggage.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto needs no certificate from hot-headed, empty vessels, and politicians of hot air. On the international front, ZAB had garnered global standing through his oratory, foreign affairs expertise, and personal dignity. On the national front, the emergence of ZAB brought an end to the politics of the infamous 22 families. Before his ascendancy to the political stage in the country, the economic and political destiny of the nation was concentrated in the hands of those families. It is disturbing to note that social media moguls who have hardly read a book on political literature are becoming judges and issuing certificates of treachery to their political opponents. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto laid down his life but refused to bow down before the dictator. After ZAB’s judicial murder, his daughter Benazir Bhutto, the political successor, faced political persecution and incarceration but stood firm like a rock. And finally, she was physically eliminated from the political arena.
Usually, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is disparaged for his feudal background. In his book "The Bhutto Dynasty" by Owen Bennett-Jones, writing on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, it is mentioned that "Stanley Wolpert and Salman Taseer both made the point that Zulfikar was the product of conflicting, contradictory influences: his Western education and his feudal background. It is an obvious observation but no less valid for that. However, in a PhD dissertation on the Bhutto’s PPP, Maleeha Lodhi, who went on to have a distinguished career as a newspaper editor and diplomat, rejected the idea that the way to understand Zulfikar was through the prism of the conflict between his Sindhi feudal influences on the one hand and his Western education on the other. The key, she argued, was his ambition and preoccupation with his personal destiny. His manipulation of different interests was not the product of a schizophrenic personality but revealed a balance-of-power strategy of a practitioner of realpolitik. In fact, both insights into his personality can be valid simultaneously—and both are."
Recently, a certain journalist criticised Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Jr’s political vibrancy in the wake of canal politics due to his feudal pedigree. One should criticise the political principles and economic ideas that he wishes to employ rather than his family background. To put it precisely, under democratic norms, one enjoys a political right to disagree with the policies Zulfikar Ali Bhutto presided over, but democratic behaviour demands that the objectivity of arguments is needed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Issuing sweeping statements is nothing but a product of political envy. It is high time maligning minds started raising their level of logic and performance rather than their voice full of envy.
A a poster for the PPP Jalsa in Hyderabad, scheduled for 18 April, was circulated with noticeable printing mistakes: "No more canals, No more Indus." This error provided ample ammunition for critics to launch personal attacks against PPP leadership. Keyboard warriors began unleashing harsh remarks. To be fair, such printing mistakes are common during political activities, often due to inadequate English proficiency among those printing posters or lack of editorial oversight.
Zardari’s presidency deserved public disapproval
In my earlier piece, I opined that the Pakistan Peoples Party mishandled the canal controversy. It will have to pay a heavy price. A logical question that arises is: when the President did not have the constitutional power to give the nod for the upstream water project in question, then why did he preside over the meeting of the Green Pakistan Initiative (GPI)? It became an albatross around the Presidency and the PPP leadership’s neck. The PPP faced unprecedented anger following this phenomenon. The PPP leadership needs introspection in terms of finding out who laid the trap for the Zardari Presidency to extract endorsement for the controversial project, as the President does not have the power to give the nod for water projects or resolution of water issues occurring among the provinces. The Council of Common Interests (CCI) and ECNEC are the proper forums for resolving water issues and prioritising any upstream water project.
Renowned water expert Naseer Memon believes that Mr. Zardari did an illegal act by endorsing these canals as President of Pakistan. Water is the subject of CCI, and the President’s office has no authority over water-related matters. The anti-canal movement launched by the legal fraternity and powered by civil society has checkmated the king and his political party in its only stronghold, the Sindh province. The winds of change have started blowing in Sindh. The PPP will have to walk the talk and make every move carefully, calculating its pros and cons.
Political parties, especially the PPP, must draw red lines when it comes to compromising on issues of public interest. There should be a limit to their compromising. An unlimited level of compromising politics is detrimental to a democratic political framework. After the three Ds—denial, defiance, and delay—in the wake of the lawyers’ dharna, lubricated by diverse public participation, against the disputed canals at the Babarloi Bypass in Khairpur, the Shahbaz Sharif-led government convened the Council of Common Interests (CCI), and in a hurriedly called meeting, it decided to halt the new canals initiative until ‘mutual understanding’ could be achieved among provinces.
Following this successful anti-canal struggle, civil society has put tremendous pressure on the Sindh government to rescind the lease granting lands for corporate farming in the province. A recent viral social media post featuring PPP leader Khursheed Shah’s reported statement, "Those who don’t even have a dog—a veiled reference to opposition political parties—have started struggling against disputed canals," was particularly demeaning and inflammatory. However, the looming disasters from corporate farming affect everyone, regardless of land ownership. Water is life, and all livelihoods linked to the Indus River are at stake.
The various PPP leaders appear confused. For instance, PPP MNA Syed Naveed Qamar reportedly stated in a TV talk that they were not against all canals, but just one particular canal. Such instances have poured vials of public wrath upon the PPP.
Criticising the candle in the dark
"Candles in the Dark—Successful Organisations in Pakistan’s Weak Institutional Environment," jointly written by Mahmood Ali Ayub and Syed Turab Ali Hussain, offered diversified input on various institutions achieving performance, public trust, legitimacy, and desired results. The Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) is included in the book. The authors convincingly commented in the introduction that "Few public entities in Pakistan have fulfilled their established objective as effectively as the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). This programme was launched in July 2008 with the immediate objective of ameliorating the negative effects of slow economic growth, rising food prices, and inflation on the roughly 25 million (15 percent of the country's population) living in extreme poverty, particularly women, through cash transfers to eligible families."
Accusing the BISP beneficiaries as beggars is nothing but callousness. Only those economically disadvantaged can understand the importance of the cash transfers in question. International donors like the World Bank, USAID, and Asian Development Bank, providing staggering amounts of cash for the cash-starved families, is a living testimony of the BISP being a viable economic arrangement for needy women.
Those criticising the BISP argue that instead of offering this financial patronage to impoverished sections of women, industrial units should be prioritised to create employment opportunities and subsequent sources of survival. While the importance of industry in underpinning the individual economy cannot be disputed, the importance of this economic protection can’t be neglected. We see in developed countries that jobless and economically disadvantaged individuals are supported through social protection programs.
The PPP is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. Denigrating PPP supporters for the plate of biryani or the BISP cash is no political argument. Neither will this propaganda divert the political flock to you.
Lawyers of the Indus turned the tables
Since birds of the same feather flock together, those addicted to receiving likes by sharing sensational arguments, contemptuous content, and derogatory dialogues find like-minded individuals and continue sharing the content, posing as great proponents of change, political reforms, and societal goodness.
Intoxicated by digital addiction, we cross thresholds of political decency. And decency is much-needed for healthy public discourse, ultimately ensuring transparency, credibility, and good governance
A logical question that arises is: while the lawyers’ anti-canal dharna was going on at Babarloi Bypass, led by Aamir Nawaz Warraich, why did certain parties choose to block roads and shut down various cities of Sindh? Were they taking focus away from the ongoing lawyers’ anti-canal dharna, or were they opening their own small political shop to grab attention? Certain quarters concerned have to give a logical answer to this question.
Factionalism has kept nationalists so apart that even canals on the Indus River, which pose an existential threat to the province, have failed to bring them under one umbrella and subsequently offer unified resistance.
However, it must be acknowledged that certain nationalist parties and socialist parties, like the Sindh United Party (SUP) led by Syed Zain Shah, Awami Tehreek (AT), Qaumi Awami Tehreek led by Latif Palijo, Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM-Aresar Group), Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA), Jamat-e-Islami (JUI-F), Jamaat-e-Islami, Jeay Sindh Mahaz led by Riaz Chandio, were pioneers in raising their voices against the controversial irrigation project, specifically the canals. However, this doesn’t give any one of them a license to issue certificates or claim sole ownership of the anti-canal struggle.
As it was the renowned water experts like Dr Hassan Abbas and Naseer Memon, among various others, who started shining light on the long-term murky aspects of the contentious project. These water experts diligently dissected the disputed canals and laid bare the looming strangulation of the Indus River and its subsequent consequences. Besides, the intellectual establishment, comprising journalists, through their research-based articles in print media and investigative reporting, highlighted the glaring implications of pursuing corporate farming, including the slow death of agriculture, humanitarian crises, displacement, and the death of the Delta, as well as an existential threat to the people of the riparian province. Their diversified input mobilised the public; hence, we saw public protests swelling beyond the imagination of those sitting in Islamabad and Punjab.
More importantly, the lawyers’ dharna not only injected fresh blood into the anti-canal movement but was also a turning point in terms of putting decisive pressure on the federal government, which finally caved in and decided to engage the concerned stakeholders and those protesting against the disputed canals.
Claiming sole proprietorship of the anti-canal struggle is like snatching a turban to wear that was due for some other head.
Mainstream political parties have a tainted legacy
The PML-N and PPP leaderships have historically had a contentious relationship, with periods of heightened tension and vilification campaigns against each other. In the 1990s, this rivalry was particularly pronounced, with both parties frequently clashing on policy and ideology.
With the emergence of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), vilifying political opponents reached new heights, as they were being dubbed as thieves, dacoits, looters, etc. After coming into power in 2018, the PTI-led government refused to shun vilification campaigns against political opponents. As a result, we witnessed the planting of social media landmines against political opponents during the PTI-led government.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s political base mainly comes from the urban middle class and the gated community. Despite this, both the top-tier leadership and rank-and-file of the party failed to quench their thirst for political blame games against its political opponents.
Character assassination by politicians against each other can have several consequences, including:
- Erosion of public trust: Repeated personal attacks can lead to skepticism about politicians' integrity and motives.
- Polarisation: Mudslinging can deepen divisions, making it harder to find common ground or compromise.
- Damage to reputation: False or exaggerated claims can harm a politician's reputation, potentially affecting their career.
- Distraction from issues: Focus on personal attacks can overshadow important policy discussions and problems facing the country.
- Negative impact on political discourse: Character assassination can contribute to a toxic political environment, discouraging constructive debate and civility.
These consequences can ultimately undermine the political process and governance.
What we need to realise is that history will ultimately judge who stood strong and who faltered. It neither forgets nor forgives. Let it decide at the end of the day who played a pivotal part, who made half-hearted measures, or who compromised on the issue. History neither forgives nor forgets. Let it decide who the heroes are. Giving a clean chit or withdrawing the same is not an individual act. History is the proper forum for this verdict.
It's uncertain whether the supremos of political parties, political workers, and their followers, as well as the general public, will change their approach to avoid sensationalism and issuing certificates. However, increased awareness and critical thinking can potentially lead to a shift in behaviour.
To promote this shift, it's essential to:
- Encourage critical thinking and media literacy
- Foster a culture of nuanced discussion and debate
- Promote fact-based information and responsible communication
- Discourage knee-jerk reactions and sensationalism
Ultimately, it's a collective effort that requires individuals, political leaders, and institutions to work together toward creating a more informed and responsible public discourse.
The elephant in the room
An obvious issue no one is talking about is that everyone on digital forums poses as an expert in political affairs and technical matters. After the emergence of vlogging, the political landscape has become even more difficult to comprehend. Vloggers present their views and news as ultimate political realities. Given the lack of editorial oversight, these digital enterprises have stifled public critical thinking capacity. Since sensationalism sells like hot cakes, it is very difficult to resist such temptations.
Having said that, there is no second opinion that social media has emerged as a powerful platform for highlighting issues of public interest and raising voices against various social ills, and political and economic indifference. However, one must use these media platforms cautiously, wisely, and critically.
It is said, “A cat that dreams to be a lion must first lose its appetite for rats.” If the content is spicy and up to their taste in terms of being sensational, they just become the mouthpieces and advance particular narratives. Imagine the scale of ill-informed people on social media networking sites. A highly educated person uploaded a certain letter with toxic commentary in Sindhi language, involving the Sindh Government giving lands for corporate farming, calling it "fresh," which had been issued in April 2024. This speaks volumes about the social media generation, who are circulating content without even reading it properly.
Binary thinking
A sound knowledge base and vast experience are needed to sift digitally-induced information through the sieve of impartiality and independent thought.
This developing digital trend of "With us, or with them" is dangerous and must be addressed while making and implementing laws that could ensure a clean digital ecosystem. The problem is that individual or party-based laws are being formulated and implemented to crush dissent, respectively. Instead of ensuring a clean digital ecosystem, muzzling the media and strangulating independent minds through draconian laws have been the outcomes prioritised by policymakers over the decades.
The lawyers’ anti-canal movement, launched by the legal fraternity led by Aamir Nawaz Warraich, is a living testimony that sheer will coupled with timely decisions brings both public participation and fame. Aamir has become a force to reckon with. It thus proved that those who desire to wear the crown must first prove their worth.
What the sensationalists need to focus on is that reckless driving thrills but kills. Likewise, manipulated content might bring them or political leaders temporary point-scoring and thumbs on social media networking sites, but at the end of the day, political garbage is destined to be dropped in the dustbin of history.
If this digital intolerance is allowed to flourish, what political parties - and we as a society - need to realise is that one day we will not be safe from its toxicity, which is being doled out so freely on digital forums against political opponents and those disliked by individuals and parties.
No light at the end of the tunnel?
Marcus Aurelius said, "Speak little, listen much, think deeply, judge slowly."
We are neglecting this age-old wisdom, as we have a tendency toward digital impulsiveness. Digital demagoguery refers to the use of social media and other digital platforms to spread misinformation, manipulate public opinion, and incite emotions through inflammatory or divisive content. It involves exploiting digital tools to influence people’s beliefs and actions, often for personal or political gain, by appealing to emotions rather than reason. This can lead to the spread of harmful ideologies, polarisation, and erosion of public discourse.
Intoxicated by digital addiction, we cross thresholds of political decency. And decency is much-needed for healthy public discourse, ultimately ensuring transparency, credibility, and good governance.
Until political parties learn political morality and restraint and subsequently discard the divide-and-rule approach, Pakistan’s political landscape will remain muddied. Will we, as a society, turn the corner in every context? But Hegel confirms that "We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
Calling politicians traitors and bastards is nothing but political demagoguery.