any people in Pakistan are confused when it comes to politics. This is more worrisome when our national media spends most of its time explaining political affairs. But then there is no better word to describe the government’s effort to control continued dissent on social media except defeat.

In the war of narratives, if one is always on the defence, they tend to take actions that are interpreted as an acceptance of defeat. As if banning X (formerly Twitter) were not enough, access to a newly launched platform, BlueSky, was also barred. Millions of X and BlueSky subscribers are seeking access to information using these strong platforms on account of political relevance.

What could be worse for the image of a government, claiming to be democratic, than banning something for the citizens yet using it itself? Even after the blocking of these platforms, posts from the PML-N leaders continue to appear on them. An unfazed Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and his ministers seem not to be affected by the ban as they try to educate the nation about their deeds on an almost daily basis.

A recent study by Reuters Institute shows that X is a more politics and news heavy platform than most other social media platforms. The report elaborates that there is some evidence that people cement their biases on the platform and build like-minded communities around political topics. However, this research also suggests that using the platform allows users to be exposed to more diverse news and perspectives.

The ban on X since February has been largely in place because government media managers and policymakers have failed to defeat the narrative of the Pakistan Tehreek-i- Insaf on the platform. There are signs for ordinary people to see who, in fact, is running the show. Instead of correcting their political mistakes government leaders continue to make more. One wonders how the PML-N could agree to such a self-defeating unpopular strategy? But then, historically, politicians in hybrid governments have always been quite compliant. It can be argued therefore that the things might have been no different had a PTI government been in place.

The confusion is not new. Confusion is written large on policy statements and actions from day one of the hybrid governments. We want to be seen as a thriving democratic Islamic republic, but are not ready to accept criticism or opposition. We want to be modern but at the same time hardline religious. We want billions of dollars of foreign investment but are not ready to provide a suitable environment for it.

We refuse to accept that we are not ready to work with big investments. We are simply not prepared for it. We push for exporting manpower. That seems to be our main focus these days, but we fail to consider whether they are equipped with the skills needed to work abroad? We want to excel in IT, but our internet service providers warn on a daily basis that restrictions on virtual private networks could become an ‘existential threat.’

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s statement informing us about the need for tighter restrictions on VPNs owing to terrorism and pornography was least helpful. So VPNs are used by millions of Pakistanis to either transact terror payments or access pornographic material? Is that a recent phenomenon? We have been at the receiving end of innumerable terror attacks since early 2000s. Why have we been unable to identify their money transfer mechanism? If most of the militants are based in Afghanistan, how come they are using VPNs in Pakistan?

As far as accessing pornographic material is concerned, this is not a new affliction. Even when the internet did not exist, such material was easily available in the form of glossy foreign magazines and playing cards. Bringing in the Islamic Ideology Council to suddenly announce an edict also confirms fears that religion is still being used as a tool for oppressive state control. Bypassing restrictions through VPNs has been called a ‘sin.’ This is a new categorisation. By PTA estimation, 20 million sinful attempts are being made on a daily basis.

No one minds a reasonable level of regulation. However, the time and manner in which it is done leaves much to be desired. It seems that this has more to do with misplaced confidence in those wielding power. The state acknowledges that a majority of Pakistani population is young, under 30, and that they are more active on these platforms. But it doesn’t wish to give them the liberty to decide for themselves how they will form their opinions.

There needs to be a certain level of caution with the use of social media platforms, but the answer is never a complete abandonment or ban. A good example is Elon Musk’s role in buying Twitter (now X) and using it for Donald Trump’s election campaign. Cambridge Analytica is not a forgotten story on Facebook.

Pakistan though is not the only ‘democracy’ that has chosen to turn off or block social media platforms. Egypt in 2011; Turkey in 2014 and 2024 and Uzbekistan during its presidential elections in 2021 have also gone down the same path. Then there are countries like China, Iran, North Korea and Turkmenistan that didn’t allow these platforms from day one.

It would be good if we can decide where we want to be heading in the coming years, whether towards total authoritarianism or a functioning democracy. The earlier the people know, the better for them. One can only hope that with each of these controversial steps we are not moving closer to a complete censorship.

The writer, a journalist for 33 years, has been an editor at the BBC in Pakistan for over two decades. Currently, he is the managing editor at Independent Urdu