The writer is senior media analyst.
THE story of the killing of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in a US drone strike in Balochistan last month remained on the media’s radar for barely more than a week. Pakistan traditionally remains immune to such events, despite their high-profile nature. In the US, Osama bin Laden’s killing was followed soon after by an action-packed Hollywood account of the hunt and killing of the Al Qaeda leader.
In Pakistan, both cases registered more displeasure than actual reporting on the events for the sake of keeping the nation informed. The public looked on with bemusement at the apparently inadequate or dysfunctional communication protocols, wondering which ministry or minister would come forward to release available information or make an official statement.
When news broke of the US drone strike which killed a high value target in Pakistan, no official statement, at any level, came for over 24 hours. There appeared to be a total breakdown of communication between the government and its public over this issue. The most active official Pakistani Twitter channel, responsible for disseminating information, also remained inactive that day. And it wasn’t until the evening of May 22 that the Foreign Office released a statement condemning the drone strike for breaching Pakistan’s sovereignty — rather than sharing any details it may have gathered since the incident occurred. On May 23, while on an official visit to Vietnam, President Obama confirmed the killing of Mullah Mansour.
Still, Pakistan continued to shy away from corroborating the news. The day following President Obama’s statement, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan became the first Pakistani official to speak in public – breaking his silence 72 hours after the drone strike. He informed the nation that Mullah Mansour’s death would only be confirmed following a DNA test. Before the results of those tests came in, however, the Afghan Taliban announced on May 25 that their leader had, in fact, died in the US strike in Balochistan.
That same day, the Pakistani military also joined in the chorus to condemn the drone strike when army chief Gen Raheel Sharif, voiced his ‘serious concerns’ to the US envoy in Pakistan. Again, rather than providing first-hand information as to what precisely happened that day, displeasure was aired.
“All indicators confirm that the person killed in the drone strike was Mullah Mansour, who was travelling on a fake identity,” said foreign affairs adviser Sartaj Aziz at a news conference on May 26, without waiting for the aforementioned DNA results. Finally, on May 29, DNA testing confirmed that the person targeted in the drone strike was none other than Mullah Mansour.
The Mullah Mansour saga reveals how Pakistan appears to exist with black holes of information — clearly apparent in hindsight and from a distance — when it comes to the state machinery responding to crisis-like situations, such as the events of May 21. There seem to be no communication protocols designating which official will be speaking on which subject. It appears that when it comes to officially responding to events or disclosing information roles and responsibility are not clearly defined.
For example, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s health issues were treated as though they were simply the family’s concerns, which they are not; they are also the state’s concerns. It ought to have been a government spokesperson’s responsibility to keep the nation informed of the prime minister’s condition, and not his daughter’s through tweets.
The government’s role is to officially report on incidents occurring in the public sphere to avoid rumour-mongering. Understandably, it takes time to collect and verify information, but at the very least the government could have told the public: we have information that a drone targeted a vehicle and we will share details as we get them. Such statements are oft repeated by spokespersons around the world. Our neighbour, Afghanistan, even has trained spokespersons appointed at regional levels. What is the problem with ours?
An abundance of airwaves and bandwidth do not qualify a country to call itself media or information-friendly. It is the degree of official reporting and information made available to the public that qualifies a country to be declared so. A blind defence of government policies by politically motivated spokespersons will help neither the state nor its people. Pakistan needs to step away from its culture of public relations management. Provided there even are any, information-sharing tools and mechanisms need to be upgraded.
Currently, Pakistanis look to the rest of the world for information about their own country. Public anxieties and concerns aren’t just grown by inactions on ground — the sheer lack of information contributes significantly. Official reporting makes a country stronger, not weaker. Credible information sharing will rebuild the public’s trust and confidence in their state.http://www.dawn.com/news/1263636/official-silence
Comments are closed.