The preceding ten years had constituted a wasted decade. The Zia regime had set records in muzzling the media. Martial Law regulations and censorship had been used to suppress the print media while the electronic media was exclusively employed for government propaganda. Journalists were thrown out of jobs, incarcerated and flogged, and their trade union was split up. However, half-way through the decade the world started changing. Electronic communications started demolishing the barriers closed societies had thrown around themselves. In 1988 the Pakistan media won a major victory when following judicial intervention the much-hated Press and Publication Ordinance of the Ayub period was amended.

The most significant result was that the right to publish, that had earlier on been made subject to the whim and caprice of the government (in some cases matters had to be referred to the head of the state), was somewhat better recognized. A few months later restoration of civilian elected government became possible. The transition to democracy demanded removal of constraints on democratic functioning of state institutions. Equally necessary was it to free the media of the restraints devised over the preceding 60 years or so -- first by the colonial administration, then by myopic quasi-democratic governments and finally by authoritarian regimes. No attention was paid to the task during the remaining years of the decade preceding the last one.

By the beginning of the last decade the transition to democratic rule had run into serious problems. The second post-1988 elected government had been sacked by the all-powerful establishment like its predecessor / and the theory of the majority parliamentary party's exclusivist rules, which implied destruction of the opposition, in parliament and outside, through the foulest possible means, had come into full sway. The need to free the media of traditional curbs could get no place on the official agenda in this situation.

The agenda for due recognition of the media's freedom was by no means light. A number of laws existed on the statute book that, directly as well as indirectly, curtailed the right to freedom of expression. These included the Security of Pakistan Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, the Press and Publication Ordinance (or its replacement -- Registration of Printing Presses and Publications Ordinance), and certain provisions of the Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Contempt of Court Act. Repeal of these laws or at least drastic amendments in them, would have met only a part of the requisites of a free media. Another requirement was freeing the electronic media of government control. Further, it was necessary to allow the media the fruits of the movement towards responsible and transparent governance which meant more wholesome and honest communication from the government to the people and recognition of the latter's right to know.

While the past decade did not prove to be barren of development as the preceding one, the gains to the media were quite meager. The National Press Trust's publishing venture ended (although the collateral damage in the form of demise of the Pakistan Times and Imroze was neither warranted nor welcome). And freedom of information moved from a debasing point to a legislative issue. However, none of the restrictive laws was touched. Instead, more restrictive laws were drafted. The trend away from transparency manifestly became stronger.

Nothing demonstrates the Establishment's resistance to openness better than the affairs of the freedom of information legislation. Yielding to domestic pressure and external goading, the government decided the enactment of a freedom of information law could not be avoided. The process began with the drafting of an ordinance in the last month of 1996 but before it was promulgated its author left the caretaker regime. His successors found the bill's sweep unacceptable and they issued a diluted version in January 1997. It was defended on the ground that the media should accept what the bureaucracy had condescended to permit. The cabinet was reported to have finalised the rules under the ordinance but these were omitted from the official gazette. The ordinance remained unimplemented and expired four months after its still-birth. The post October-1999 regime drafted a new ordinance and offered it for public debate and soon afterwards the matter was shelved. Then suddenly a freedom of Information Ordinance was issued in October 2002, after the general election had been held, and that piece of legislation is not subject to the constitutional limitation on the life of an ordinance.

This ordinance has been the subject of an extended controversy for more than year. First, it does not satisfy the internationally recognized requisites of legislation on the subject -- maximum possible access to public records, narrow space for exemptions, legitimate sanction for denial of information, and judicial redress for arbitrary withholding of information. Secondly, it is limited to federal authorities' records. Even if the federal government has chosen to become sensitive to provincial rights in this matter, there is no evidence of suggestion or advice to the provincial governments to have their own freedom of information laws (as is happening in India). Thirdly, the ordinance is considered unenforceable, especially by the administration, in the absence of rules that are yet to be notified. An enterprising NGO has challenged this position and got a ruling from the Federal Ombudsman to the effect that the keepers of public records have an obligation to provide information to applicants even in the absence of rules. For the large body of potential beneficiaries the ordinance remains a dead letter.

The government suffered a considerable loss of goodwill on the freedom of information issue by presenting it with unclean hands. The freedom of information ordinance formed part of a package that also included a Press Council Ordinance, a special defamation law and a new version of the Press and Publication Ordinance. All of these laws have been vigorously assailed as being contrary to the demands of media freedom. Thus, it can be argued that with all the old restrictive laws remaining in place and some new ones added to them, the curbs on freedom of expression and media freedom have increased.

The reality on the ground is however, somewhat different than the legal framework for the media would indicate. The media community, especially journalists in the print media, rushed to occupy the space opened up by the 1988 developments and the immense support they received from the public encouraged them to enlarge the area of freedom. They were also helped by the revolution in electronic communication and by the fact that even a controlled democracy must allow some public discourse. If governments do not go on talking they may be found completely idle. In such situations resort to punitive laws becomes difficult because exceptionally high stakes (much as national security) have to be mentioned. The scheme of reliance on an officially controlled electronic media to dictate to a captive audience has to a considerable extent been undermined by the emergence of private TV channels. Whatever they may do to remain on the right side of authority by serving its interest, they cannot survive without competing with each other in enlarging the scope of public discourse. They cannot help without increasing people's knowledge of themselves and the world. Advocates of closed society have no answer to this situation and cannot but suffer it.

Where state structures fail to completely stem free expression of ideas and opinions recourse is taken to policies and style of governance. It is in this area that the Pakistan media faces its greatest threat today. The restrictions on political activity obviously reduce the media's freedom. Besides, things happen without anybody owning responsibility and the media cannot edify the people. An agitation against denial of official publicity to a leading newspaper has been going on for weeks. The Information Minister has denied responsibility and so has the Prime Minister. If the authorship of restrictive orders is not known, against whom does one appeal and where? A journalist was detained and his arrest denied for many days. In much cases, freedom of expression does not face a frontal attack, the edifice on which this freedom rests is pulled down.