For a democratic system, free and autonomous exchange of diverse ideas is vital. And in a vibrant democracy multitude of political and societal actors engage in critical debate. There are two set of actors that constitute a democracy. One entity is the rule orientated primary organs of the state that include legislature, executive, judiciary, bureaucratic, and all other administrative institutions; whereas the other protagonist is an autonomous and a highly complex public sphere.
Public sphere is realm of the people accessible to the commoners. It is a place for communicative interexchange, an arena for clash of ideas and a forum for evaluative debate. Hence public sphere is the domain of vox populi vox dei. The proverb literally translates as “the voice of the people is the voice of God”. In a well-functioning democracy, provision of an interactive space for the people is prerequisite for active political engagement.
Founding of public sphere is coterminous with evolution of political thought. In ancient Athens (the model of democracy) public sphere was accessible to only the few. But ideas were exchanged freely within it.
Discussion, deliberation, debate was exclusively privileged yet public sphere never did preclude argumentation.
Modern system of governance i.e., the representative democracy aspires to incorporate argumentative aspect of the ancient public sphere. What marks modern system distinctive to the ancient is its outreach to engage with marginalized segments of the polity.
In modern democratic order, those charged with governing can no longer leverage their arguments based on their social station and appeal to divine right to bolster their legitimacy to rule. In modern democratic system of governance, it is the vox populi (the voice of the people) that directs those who govern. Vox dei (voice of God) does not transmit through rulers any longer.
Reality however is that modern democratic system has failed on its democratic promise. Though public sphere is in existence but the space within it for communicative interexchange has contracted. Modern democratic states all across the world have regressed to incorporate exclusive and despotic nature of their ancient ancestors.
For presumed order in the polity modern democratic states prevent clash of opposing narrative(s). Contemporary democratic states believe in singularity of public discourse for transmission through mainstream media. For example, in US, Fox News is a particular illustration of how neo-conservative worldview is broadcasted through mainstream media. Consequently, this media outlet evokes a selective, exclusive and highly polarized analyses of country’s political landscape. This crafting of singular narrative has permeated so deep that even the alternative media sources espouse dominant narrative: take examples of online Brietbart news network and Facebook’s favorable position to Donald Trump’s authoritative tendencies.
Similarly, the state in Pakistan develops dominant discourse(s) to shape popular opinion. Endorsed narrative of the state is broadcast through myriad of media sites. Mainstream media transmit dominant narrative by speaking in language favorable to the ruling elite. Such language is selective in its critical evaluation of institutions of the state. Thus we witness a superimposed positive image of Pakistan’s manipulated political landscape. Mainstream media (print, electronic) becomes a conduit for educating the masses to internalize the fabled positive image. This endorsement of positive image inadvertently has become a modern parallel to Plato’s allegory of cave!
And, thus concomitant with allegorical cave the crafted positive image coerces the people to believe that they are witnessing history in the making. That the current epoch shall be remembered by the posterity because of current leaderships’ relentless pursuance for reviving puritan order in the society. Thus in aid of the state, mainstream media helps to create images of devout piety and messages of heartfelt compassion for sensory consumption. Furthermore, in search for and to support the favored positive image all boundaries of space and time is conveniently overlooked.
Take the example of telecasting foreign produced historical drama(s). The developers of dramatized production had primary objective: to engage masses in rhetorical cultural revivalism by drawing contemporary parallels with the bygone era. Thus for them dramatized history glorifying magnanimity of the mensch (shrouded more in myth than reality) was the desirable educative modicum.
As the drama performance provides peculiar cathartic refuge to the wider public for they are made to believe that history has been reincarnated in the present. Such was the aim of developers of the dramatized performance and hence they were duly provided support by their political government.
Moreover, supporters of the telecast forcefully draw absurd social and political comparisons with contemporary world scenario. But they continue to overlook one crucial point: that criticism is not on the broadcast per se but is primarily on propagating this historical account as the indigenous legacy of Muslims’. State broadcaster on the other hand takes pride in telecasting foreign content as if it has been a local production. While critics persistently raise objections supporters rubbish all criticism.
No one side satisfy the other and both supporters and critics continue their tirade on cyberspace; whereas the domineering state meanwhile is successful in enforcing selective version of historical interpretation. The state thus utilizes mainstream media for nationwide broadcast and social media for popular acceptance.
The last example was cited only to illustrate that so effective is control of the state that even alternative media have started to speak in language that propagates the dominant narrative. The point is that mainstream media speaks in language that favors the narrative of state. Within the contours of permissible language counter narratives are generated on alternative media outlets by those who reject the dominant narrative. But counter narratives are devalued by certain selective figureheads of mainstream media.
The fact of the matter is that space for public debate has shrunk and has now become increasingly unitary. The public sphere always had struggled to find communicative space on the manipulated political landscape of Pakistan. With technological advancement the computer mediated communication through internet provided much needed space for dissenting voices. But as the technology advanced so have the measures to counteract dissonance.
Public sphere is realm of the people accessible to the commoners. It is a place for communicative interexchange, an arena for clash of ideas and a forum for evaluative debate. Hence public sphere is the domain of vox populi vox dei. The proverb literally translates as “the voice of the people is the voice of God”. In a well-functioning democracy, provision of an interactive space for the people is prerequisite for active political engagement.
Founding of public sphere is coterminous with evolution of political thought. In ancient Athens (the model of democracy) public sphere was accessible to only the few. But ideas were exchanged freely within it.
Discussion, deliberation, debate was exclusively privileged yet public sphere never did preclude argumentation.
Modern system of governance i.e., the representative democracy aspires to incorporate argumentative aspect of the ancient public sphere. What marks modern system distinctive to the ancient is its outreach to engage with marginalized segments of the polity.
In modern democratic order, those charged with governing can no longer leverage their arguments based on their social station and appeal to divine right to bolster their legitimacy to rule. In modern democratic system of governance, it is the vox populi (the voice of the people) that directs those who govern. Vox dei (voice of God) does not transmit through rulers any longer.
Reality however is that modern democratic system has failed on its democratic promise. Though public sphere is in existence but the space within it for communicative interexchange has contracted. Modern democratic states all across the world have regressed to incorporate exclusive and despotic nature of their ancient ancestors.
For presumed order in the polity modern democratic states prevent clash of opposing narrative(s). Contemporary democratic states believe in singularity of public discourse for transmission through mainstream media. For example, in US, Fox News is a particular illustration of how neo-conservative worldview is broadcasted through mainstream media. Consequently, this media outlet evokes a selective, exclusive and highly polarized analyses of country’s political landscape. This crafting of singular narrative has permeated so deep that even the alternative media sources espouse dominant narrative: take examples of online Brietbart news network and Facebook’s favorable position to Donald Trump’s authoritative tendencies.
Similarly, the state in Pakistan develops dominant discourse(s) to shape popular opinion. Endorsed narrative of the state is broadcast through myriad of media sites. Mainstream media transmit dominant narrative by speaking in language favorable to the ruling elite. Such language is selective in its critical evaluation of institutions of the state. Thus we witness a superimposed positive image of Pakistan’s manipulated political landscape. Mainstream media (print, electronic) becomes a conduit for educating the masses to internalize the fabled positive image. This endorsement of positive image inadvertently has become a modern parallel to Plato’s allegory of cave!
And, thus concomitant with allegorical cave the crafted positive image coerces the people to believe that they are witnessing history in the making. That the current epoch shall be remembered by the posterity because of current leaderships’ relentless pursuance for reviving puritan order in the society. Thus in aid of the state, mainstream media helps to create images of devout piety and messages of heartfelt compassion for sensory consumption. Furthermore, in search for and to support the favored positive image all boundaries of space and time is conveniently overlooked.
Take the example of telecasting foreign produced historical drama(s). The developers of dramatized production had primary objective: to engage masses in rhetorical cultural revivalism by drawing contemporary parallels with the bygone era. Thus for them dramatized history glorifying magnanimity of the mensch (shrouded more in myth than reality) was the desirable educative modicum.
As the drama performance provides peculiar cathartic refuge to the wider public for they are made to believe that history has been reincarnated in the present. Such was the aim of developers of the dramatized performance and hence they were duly provided support by their political government.
Moreover, supporters of the telecast forcefully draw absurd social and political comparisons with contemporary world scenario. But they continue to overlook one crucial point: that criticism is not on the broadcast per se but is primarily on propagating this historical account as the indigenous legacy of Muslims’. State broadcaster on the other hand takes pride in telecasting foreign content as if it has been a local production. While critics persistently raise objections supporters rubbish all criticism.
No one side satisfy the other and both supporters and critics continue their tirade on cyberspace; whereas the domineering state meanwhile is successful in enforcing selective version of historical interpretation. The state thus utilizes mainstream media for nationwide broadcast and social media for popular acceptance.
The last example was cited only to illustrate that so effective is control of the state that even alternative media have started to speak in language that propagates the dominant narrative. The point is that mainstream media speaks in language that favors the narrative of state. Within the contours of permissible language counter narratives are generated on alternative media outlets by those who reject the dominant narrative. But counter narratives are devalued by certain selective figureheads of mainstream media.
The fact of the matter is that space for public debate has shrunk and has now become increasingly unitary. The public sphere always had struggled to find communicative space on the manipulated political landscape of Pakistan. With technological advancement the computer mediated communication through internet provided much needed space for dissenting voices. But as the technology advanced so have the measures to counteract dissonance.