The vital question at the moment is: What should the media do now, when a democratic process has been initiated in Pakistan thanks to a vibrant civil society and the lawyers’ movement? Should it struggle for the battle of hearts and minds of Pakistani people in promoting a democratic culture and help in the founding of truly democratic political and national institutions in the country?

The other important and interlinked questions are: How should such a thing be done? How can such a lofty political enterprise be accomplished? How do you win people’s hearts and minds? How do you counteract the ongoing tyranny of the powerful, invisible and yet present at every step of national life, historically rooted in political culture and by virtue of the societal structure? How do you constructively engage with a television media that, because of its electronic wizardry, instantly elevates modest, mortal human-beings to celebrities? How do you deal with these prominent media personalities – how do you prevent their personal “egos” from overshadowing, confusing and contradicting important national issues (for example, PJ Mir already advertises his TV program by focusing on himself interviewing several heads of state)? How do you encounter the emergence of popular mass culture and its love affair with cheap sensationalism? How do you stop the media being influenced by commercial interests (already TV commercials appear in the middle – in mid-sentence — of a PM interview and interrupt national news broadcasts)? All of these issues are real, massive and increasingly important – that is, if we as a nation wish to continue on our journey as a democratic civilized society to an enlightened future (but definitely not to the “enlightened moderation” of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf!).

Political scientists, social critics and media theorists will give us a number of solutions and advocate several conceptual ideas to resolve issues that are implicit in situations such as ours.

The developmental media theorists call for the media and government “to work in partnership to ensure that the media assists in the planned beneficial development of the country.” Obviously, in such a partnership some kind of government regulations will have to be put strictly in place and the important role of criticism in the media will thus diminish. The advantage of such an arrangement is that the media can help support government development efforts, assist in economic development and aid society at large. However, the greatest disadvantage is the short-circuiting of the democratic process because it prioritizes government stability over democratic progress.

Another group of the social critics want the media and government to work “in concert” to ensure the beneficial development of a nation. Unfortunately, this kind of arrangement will require increasing government involvement in the operation of the media. It can result in the creation of a government supra-advisory body to guide and direct the functioning of the media. The question is: Will the media willingly submit itself to growing government intervention and surrender its absolute freedom to conduct itself the way it wishes in the context of a democratic environment? Given the history of control over the media in Pakistan and the flourishing of a democratic culture, this option seems incompatible with present trends.

The concept of democratic participant theory advocates the media reviving grass-root cultural pluralism. This, in turn, helps in the creation of innovative small media which is ideally controlled by small group members. Consequently, it results in the increased participation in media management and enhances cultural advocacy. The idea is useful in the sense that it can offset the massive influence of economic interest groups and advertising on media functioning. In such a way, the media can promote the ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity of a nation like Pakistan.

Can the media in Pakistan assume a role in the political system to revolutionize the political culture of this country? Perhaps this approach seems more appropriate in context of Pakistan’s democratization process – after all, without fundamental changes in the socio-political-economic structure of our society, the possibility of a leadership emerging out of a people’s consciousness and being completely focused on the masses’ welfare remains absolutely remote. What contemporary Pakistan needs is the start of a historical process in which the media changes and embraces both a revolutionary and evolutionary role – a role in which it challenges the traditional political structures and helps in the creation of an innovative national consciousness embedded in democratic norms and the accountability of the political establishment to the people.

In this sense, the media has to play a vital role in Pakistan’s future existence, survival and economic-political-cultural progress. Notwithstanding the rhetoric, is this sort of media role possible in Pakistan? Realistically speaking, it is a major challenge – nearly insurmountable given the increasing power of the forces of pure capitalism taking hold of the Pakistani economy and consequently of its electronic media in particular.

My last question is: Why is Pakistani electronic media so elitist orientated? The same generals, the same VIPs, the same politicians, and the same judges are interviewed again and again. This is an example of an opiate mentality. Isn’t it? Where are the fresh faces, the innovative ideas and the diverse platforms so cherished in a democratic set-up?

And yet we have hope – optimism that a socially, culturally and politically responsible media might conduct itself with dignity, resourcefulness and accountability to take a course towards its own evolution and hence take a leap in the direction of revolutionizing Pakistan’s politics.

Will it? Frankly I do not have an honest, definite answer for you. We have lived in murky waters for too long – we have been accustomed to mental slavery and power control – instantly breaking away seems difficult…

And yet, human behavior is unpredictable…!

In other words, in America’s view (and of the apologists for Musharraf’s and the US perspective in Pakistan), Pakistan is facing so-called “extremism” and “terrorism” on its soil and the war against it will have to continue indefinitely. The implicit message is that the “war on terror” is neither only an American war nor one of General (retd) Musharraf’s exclusively designed political doctrine — it is Pakistan’s war, where a specific segment of its citizenry (especially Pashtuns in the northern area of the country) have gone ideologically berserk (because Islam is violent) seeking martyrdom for “hoors” (heavenly beauties) in the life hereafter. The road to this imaginary Heavenly Kingdom is sought by these misled miscreants by identifying Bush’s noble and cavalier America as the enemy. In addition, all those who support Bush’s so-called worthy enterprise of democracy and freedom are on the death list of these gone-mad Muslim terrorists.

Indeed, this whole approach is absurd. In fact, all this anti-Islamic propaganda is a set-up to plan American military presence in Pakistan that will expand gradually with time and finally give the Americans a permanent military base (or bases) from which to conduct its global agenda of economic-military-political expansion all the way to the Central Asian Islamic States. It is precisely for this reason that the Americans are supporting Musharraf’s presidency and prefer to deal with a dictator rather than a democratic establishment in Islamabad.

If Pakistan has to survive as a peaceful progressive democratic nation then four matters will have to be settled at once: First, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf will have to go immediately; this will deprive the Americans of their vital contact and present control over instant decision-making in Islamabad (in accordance with their dictates). Equally important is the need to develop political processes by which all matters relating to any kind of military or civil engagement with the United States will have to be decided in the Pakistani parliament by a competent and appropriate legislative body. Three, Pakistan’s military establishment from now on should have only an advisory role (through parliamentary hearings) even when business with the US is purely of a military nature. Fourth, in all matters pertaining to American engagement with Pakistan, the media’s involvement as a forum of debate will have to be an integral mechanism of political decision-making in this country. This will promote the democratic process and public input in national policy-making.

However, the immediate concern that Pakistan’s newly elected parliament should have is the Pentagon’s plan to send over 100 American trainers to the work with and train the Frontier Corps, paramilitary forces of nearly 85,000 members recruited from ethnic groups on the border. For God’s sake, don’t let this happen. It is a plan, if it materializes, that will have catastrophic effects and lasting impacts on Pakistan’s recently elected democratic establishment’s ability to promote its own independence, free of American pressures, and to pursue its national interests in all of its political-military decision-making vis-à-vis the US.

What Pakistan generals, successive political establishments and foreign-policy managers have failed to understand, time and again, are the American political strategies and fundamentals that operate behind its military planning. It would be instructive for the in-coming Pakistani government in Islamabad to have an in-depth review of American intentions, historically documented, that the placement of military advisors and trainers is a first step towards procuring permanent military bases all over the world. This is always projected as benevolent behavior of a super-power towards a friendly country (in fact, towards pro-American orchestrated dictatorships and elitist regimes). It happened in the pre-and-post WWII era. It happened all over Latin and South America. It happened in the pre-and-post Vietnam war. It happened in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and in every nook and corner around the world wherever the Americans could spread their reach for economic and political exploitation and the promotion of ideological capitalism. It is happening now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa and has been happening in the Middle East forever. The American appetite for political control and economic exploitation is insatiable.

It is to be thoroughly understood that the US is a country that thrives on the continuation and expansion of conflicts and promotes them globally as a part of its foreign policy enterprise. The plan to send 100 military trainers to Pakistan is an integrated part of the American conflict-promotion venture that would escalate internal political strife and antagonism and would eventually give the US an opportunity to expand its military presence in this country — a step towards its future plan to subdue the entire region from Pakistan all the way to Central Asia.

With the possibility of Musharraf gone, the newly elected Pakistani political leadership has a historical chance to alter the nature of future global politics. History has its own precious moments — visionary leadership can capture this golden opportunity thrust on it by the fast changing events and transform its own destiny as well as have an impact on humanity’s future.

The issue of 100 American trainers coming to Pakistan, at its face-value, seems inconsequential and of rather marginal importance. But the fact of the matter is that it is NOT — consult anyone who understands American history, its temperament, its arrogance, its plans and strategies and, above all, its ability to inflict terror and you will be told:

For God’s sake, don’t let America do it… Don’t let America destroy our nation…!

For God’s sake, don’t let America pitch us against each other… Don’t let America make us kill each other…!

For God’s sake, let’s not sell ourselves to America… This is what the Pakistani people must force its political leadership to respect… its verdict to be a sovereign independent nation.