A recent opinion piece by Pervez Hoodbhoy brought back a lot of memories from early 2011. The year started with the killing of Governor Salman Taseer. The incident left the country divided and showed the gap between country’s liberals and the right-wing. It was all over the electronic and print media and for the first time, its infiltration on the ‘new media’ became visible as well. Twitter feeds related to Pakistan were often ‘throttled’ with threats towards those who supported the late Governor.
The whole incident often left me wondering about the role of civil society, especially the NGOs, in combating extremism and intolerance in the country during the last decade. I was part of many programs and projects that were aimed at promoting social and inter-faith harmony. It is no secret that executing and implementing these programs at the grass root level is not an inexpensive task. A four-day face-to-face training event for about 6 activists in one city would include boarding, lodging and transport costs. And the number of people these activists could reach through physical meeting was clearly limited, depending on the resources and advocacy tools used.
An example of an inter-faith meeting
Compare this outreach to the number of people who are exposed to the Friday khutbas or sermons that Hoodbhoy points to in his article. In the country’s estimated 250,000 mosques, 10 percent are assumed to be inciting hate for people of other faiths and opinions every week. Clearly the clerics of these mosques have a better infrastructure for outreach and to easily disseminate their message. It is one of the main reasons why disparity and intolerance towards other groups is alarmingly on the rise. And since there are no measures to counter it, chances are, it will continue to rise.
No doubt the NGOs alone are no alternative for handling these volatile issues. The state needs to address it as well, through legislation and implementation of the rule of law.
Before, advocates of new media had a hard time explaining why it was important to be on board with the modern communications tools. Even though, in 2009 Iranians showed the potential of ‘new media’ as a communication and lobbying tool, it was the Arab spring that showed the world. Of course, direct comparisons cannot be made due to the difference in the literacy rate and percentage of Internet users, both of which are much lower in Pakistan, than, let’s say, Egypt.
However, the point remains, that the use of social media has provided a much cheaper solution to lobbying, sharing messages and discussing, all of which raises awareness. But this vast potential is yet to be tapped to the full. I see a genuine lack of online presence from the community level organizations. Even if they do have a presence, it is mostly not very interactive for the users or officials become active online only in their individual capacity.
In Pakistan, many local organizations are still making excellent efforts for safeguarding the rights of minorities and promoting peace in their respective communities but yet have to be on board with exploiting new tools to spread their message across. Many international organizations rely heavily on online ‘community building’ through volunteers. One can only hope that other civil society groups will follow the footsteps of the recent online ‘success’ of Pakistan Tehreek-Insaaf (PTI). PTI has managed to really engage the Pakistani youth (both home and abroad) in their activities through the use of social media tools and platforms. This in turn has had a great impact on PTI’s follower-ship.
In short, Pakistan’s civil society and local NGOs need to start taking their presence online seriously if they are to really bring a lasting impact to the current state of affairs in Pakistan, a situation which currently seems to be only changing for the worse. Alternative media such as blogs and online discussion forums need to disperse equally throughout the country so that the voices of the under-represented and the neglected can be heard as well. Online inclusion of various sectors is fundamental in order to reach an authentic and balanced debate on the country’s democratic and human rights’ values.
