Democratising social media

Courtesy:- Ayesha Haroon
Wednesday, March 14, 2012

The Slap is still ringing in the social media space. Perhaps the ruckus about it in the social media played some part in getting a quick response from the Election Commission and from the Supreme Court. Perhaps not.

Putting aside The Slap, we can take a number of recent incidents where the social media discussions, opinions, pressure resulted in responsible parties taking action. In Maya Khan’s vigilante entertainment – it certainly wasn’t journalism – the television channel had to eventually fire her. The same was done in Mehr Bokhari’s case, where her irresponsible and uninformed vitriol fanned tensions surrounding the controversial use of the Blasphemy Law. Smarting from the social media drubbing he got for his frighteningly thoughtless programme on Balochistan, Kamran Shahid’s grilling of Maya Khan appeared to be an attempt at damage control.

More importantly, the widespread circulation and condemnation of the Kharatobad killings, on the internet, put unprecedented pressure on the army and the government. It was for the same reason that policemen were held responsible for the Sialkot killings, as well as the Rangers who shot dead an unarmed man in Karachi. It had always been the police/army’s version against that of the ordinary citizen’s, until the social media finally challenged their ‘untouchable’ status. The video documentation, in all these cases helped, but a lot of pressure came when the video became viral.

Social media in Pakistan is largely managed and populated by a mainly urban, educated, English-medium-schooled population. Urdu, until very recently, could only be written in Roman. Its politicisation increased during the lawyers’ movement, five years ago. The movement, against the emergency imposed by Musharraf and for the restoration of judiciary, was in social media terms, Pakistan’s Tahrir Square. Protestors used text messages, Twitter, and Facebook to communicate with each other, circumvent police blockades, organise meetings, join judiciary’s protests, and gather outside police stations holding fellow protestors.

From then onwards, a huge amount of public pressure has been generated through this medium. Often times it even checks traditional media, print and television, on various issues. Weak editorial checks can sometimes let articles be printed that should go right in the bin. Recently, an article was published that made fun of those suffering from bi-polar disorder. A large internet-based protest and condemnation made the newspaper publicly apologise for its editorial oversight. Some time back an article that was insensitive to certain sects had gotten a similar response. These checks are important to increase sensitivity and proper understanding of social issues.

The social media has a huge potential to help strengthen democracy. That said, we first have to democratise social media itself. How many people have access to individual media, internet, and mass media, in Pakistan? How many are able to use it effectively? How many are literate, can write in English, can use the rather difficult Urdu typeface using the keypads and keyboards? How to increase the number of people using it, across income and other divides?

As those wielding keypads and keyboards are largely urban, young and from middle-class, the content and concerns discussed in our social media have a significant urban middle-class bias. Not that there are no debates amongst them. Often there are heated political and social interactions on the Twitter between the ‘liberal’ and the ‘conservative’ urban middle-class, between the PTI-wallahs and the PPP-PML-N-wallahs, but the larger reference and the context remains and is shared by both sides. So the question is: can it be possible for social media users to step out of their income class and hence, interests?

Once out in the public space, it is our responsibility to look at problems and social injustices in a universalistic way. We talk of the poor but the poor are not in the debate, we talk of the madrassah students, of the acid burn victims, of the disenfranchised but they are not talking about themselves in the social media. We need to widen the debate, it needs to be inclusive of all sections of the society to be truly meaningful.

Democratising social media is vital, else it will slowly lose its importance and seriousness. Democratization is essential because it implies an egalitarian society. We cannot simultaneously say that people should shape their identity, and also accept a hierarchical society where identity is determined by social position or money.

When an opinion is formed after giving our argument and then listening to other’s argument – walking in others’ shoes for a while – it is nuanced, well-informed, and empathetic. According to Kant, we can only think if we can communicate with others and they can communicate with us. Language is the medium of communication and in Pakistan’s social media sphere, without literacy and English language we really cannot communicate and hence, ‘think’.

Language and the ability to communicate are equally important for creating a democratic society. Language is a tool that helps us express, understand, and discuss – thus, it creates our reality. Not being able to communicate and discuss and learn in one’s own language – Urdu, Sindhi, Balochi, Punjabi, Pashto – disenfranchises us. If softwares for using our local languages become more accessible and easier to use, if FB and Twitter and other social media platforms develop Urdu/regional languages platforms, we would be able to hear a lot more voices and opinion. That in turn, will improve the debate in the country as well as strengthen our identity.

Given that our personality depends greatly on the public space we inhabit, a marvellous impact of the social media has been to widen our public space, to outside our city, province, region, and continent. Who knows one day, citizens of Mars may be tweeting about their issues with us. As our virtual public space extends, our information sources increase and our emotional responses overlap. Perhaps, we are closer to becoming Kant’s ‘World Citizen’.

The government’s attempt to censor and control the internet is, therefore, a direct attack against freedom of expression and human rights. Muzzling expression and thought can only push the society backwards. The government, should actually be helping increase the access to social media to its people, it should aim for debate and thought not silence and repression.

Social media is an excellent addition to the fourth pillar of democracy/society. But it has to speak for all and it has to be accessible by all. That will not only give it strength, it will also strengthen democracy, our society, as well as our humanity. The case of a poor man or woman wronged in a remote village should be as vociferously fought and advocated as issues of invasion of privacy for the urban middle class.