Ah, the national narrative

There was a time when no debate on serious matters involving core national interests was complete without the word ‘strategic’. Used to add emphasis and weight to even the most inessential events or policy proposals, this adjective also remained a handy tool to prevent discourse and undermine discussion.

Anything that was pre-fixed with ‘strategic’ suddenly became sacred. It was assumed that it had acquired qualities that could only be ignored by getting your patriotism licence suspended or even cancelled. Nuclear weapons, military takeovers, relations with aid- or oil-giving countries, growth of militants groups etc were all placed in the ‘strategic cabin’ with the tag that these matters stood automatically approved and implemented because of their intrinsic value.

While the word ‘strategic’ is still in use, its centrality seems to have been diluted by another arrival: narrative. Generic to all forms of writing, this noun (also an adjective) is now a keystone without which no national scheme or conversation can be built. It is the most sought-after term for policy planners and media gurus. It is regarded, at once, as the source of all our national problems and a solution to them.

‘Pakistan’s image isn’t improving because our narrative is weak’. ‘India’s narrative is strong and that is why it is able to convince the world to look the other way even while it commits heinous crimes in Occupied Kashmir’. ‘If only we could push our narrative harder at global forums, the comity of nations would be more empathetic to our stance’. ‘Those who go against the national narrative are enemies of the country’. ‘Where is our narrative?’ ‘Let us build a narrative; and that will address all our issues.’

These and other desires, hopes and fears centred on the new darling word ‘narrative’ make it seem as though Pakistan’s future and its present can be secured by installing this literary device in everything we do – because without a national narrative ‘we are nothing’.

So what explains this ‘strategic shift’ in favour of ‘narrative’ whose dictionary meanings are rather ordinary: ‘record’, ‘description’ ‘account’, chronicle’. What is this obsession with narrative?

The obsession is easy to explain since it is a product of social media whose tools have exponentially expanded the reach of the ‘spoken’ and ‘written’ word. It has made ordinary statements impactful even if not truthful and respectable. The sheer number of users (44 million social media accounts nationally; 2.8 billion social media users globally, just to quote two figures) makes it important to get your voice out or you’ll be drowned in this ever-expanding universe of social media.

What adds to the explanation is the fact that narrative is a sophisticated and new-generation form of propagation of a particular point of view. In essence, it is propaganda by another name. And, at times, propaganda is essential. If you don’t do it, your enemies will defeat you by building a case against you through their propaganda. So narratives are a must.

This we all understand. But what is not understood is that national narratives in this day and age have become complex products that are born of equally complex decision-making systems. These systems work in sync with each other. They have the capability of crafting consensus within themselves before they begin to speak to the world through a national narrative.

To explain this point further it is important to know what a narrative is not. To begin with, it is not a statement or a string of statements delivered over a period of time. It is a not a register of press conferences nor is it an occasional outpouring of data and statistics to prove a particular point of view. National narrative is also not a point of view of an individual or an institution. It most certainly is not a well-meaning yet foisted-from-above thesis that is never debated or discussed and yet elevated to the level of national aspiration.

So if it is not any of the above, what is it then? A national narrative is essentially packaging of policies, strategies, actions that aim to achieve a certain national goal over a period of time. Since goals become achievable when their projection is robust, and national policies become marketable when in the company of mass advertisement, therefore narratives are helpful.

The precondition for successful national narratives, however, is that they must be married to policies and actions. Minus coherent policies, narratives are just wasted decibels. It is wholly foolish to think that we can have a narrative without a policy or action that constantly endorses it. No less silly is to assume that national narratives become effective just because they are being projected at the national or global scale. Just like no war plan survives the first bullet fired, no narrative can be sustainable if it is not plausible to the intended audience – in our case, for instance, the international community.

Narratives are not lies and deceit. They are not slogans and shouting matches with the enemy. They need to be credible and plausible to resonate with and change opinions in their favour. Moreover, the carriers of the content of these narratives must also be credible. You don’t pick up the North Korean Times to find out whether Kim is a great leader or not. Nor do you ask Ivanka and Tiffany about Trump’s successes. Compromised carriers of narratives destroy the content they put out.  

However, the most critical ingredient of a national narrative is that it is consensus-based and is hotly debated before being beamed out for wider consumption. Without being grounded in national consensus, the narrative collapses even before it is launched.

With this in mind you can understand what is wrong with our narrative and why, despite our best efforts, nothing we say seems to change the world in our favour. For all our sacrifices, pain, suffering, achievements and headway on the counterterrorism front, the world continues to point an accusatory finger at us. For all the continuity of democracy and its progress in the country, the world looks at Pakistan as a country teetering on the brink of another military takeover. For all the numbers we show to the world related to the media industry, we score very low when it comes to real freedoms of expression and opinion.

That is either because our policies and actions are out sync, or because our rhetoric and reality rebel against each other or because our narrative is not distilled from a genuine process of national debate that could throw up a vision that most, if not everybody, has signed up on.

Our narratives are seasonal statements steeped in the bias or need of whoever is in power. They are not wedded to consistency of conduct. Debate is anathema and reconciliation of different institutional positions is considered a sin. With a divided home – and we have worked really hard to divide it – we want to present a united front. With knives out for each other at home we want to present to the international community a pleasant face. We choke each other in a game of self-serving publicity and yet expect the world to hear a single voice from Pakistan. In this situation, no narrative can be created – much less projected – with a reasonable degree of success.

Our decision-making systems are working at cross-purposes without even knowing what their real purposes are. On economy, foreign policy, defence matters, democracy, stability, fundamental freedoms, we remain victims of internal structural disharmony. Don’t expect symphonies to flow when the orchestra is broken. Don’t expect narratives to spring forth when the narrator is so badly conflicted – as our system at present is.

The writer is former executive editor of The News and a senior journalist with Geo TV.

Email: syedtalathussain@gmail.com

Twitter: @TalatHussain12