Hamid Mir’s show Capital Talk on Geo News included a segment last week on Justice Qazi Faez Isa speaking to the attorney general about the media not being free and the erosion of democratic norms in Pakistan, during a case regarding local government elections. This segment of Mir’s show was posted on YouTube under the heading: Justice Qazi Faez Isa nay sach duniya ko bata diya (has revealed the truth to the world). One can hardly ignore the glee underlying this statement. Mir, a man whose Twitter bio states that he still has “two bullets… as souvenirs from the enemies of media freedom,” used this as an opportunity to discuss the means used to silence journalists (threats, abductions etc) with his guest at the time, Rana Sanaullah. Mir pointed out that most past governments, including the one Sanaullah was part of, have imposed restrictions on the press via PEMRA and other channels. Sanaullah responded that an independent judiciary was essential to check the excesses of the state.

During his conversation with the AG, Justice Isa had asked reporters present in the courtroom to raise their hands if they believed that the press was free in Pakistan; none of them did. One would imagine that this fact alone could have inspired countless meta-media analysis shows. Will this conversation spark a larger discussion within the media about what impedes them from doing their jobs? The immediate response was certainly cautious, with most talk shows focusing more on the contents of the judgment than on the side note about their industry.

Another judge on the bench, Justice Baqir, asked “how long can judges remain silent? The clear implication was that although it is against convention for judges to weigh in on political matters, there comes a time when keeping silent about excesses of the state interferes with their duty to uphold the constitution. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to wonder about the relevance of freedom of the press in the context of the local government elections. Heavy-handed censorship of the media is just one part of the authoritarianism’s trespass in this country. Justice Isa was drawing a parallel between the state’s hold on the press and the local governments in the Punjab being dissolved before the end of their term. Individual actions by the state fit into a larger pattern of facts that reveals the current regime’s undemocratic mode of governance. As Justice Isa pointed out, anyone who criticises the government gets labelled a traitor.

The freedom of the press is just one part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech, which a democracy both nurtures, by its very nature, and relies upon to sustain itself. If democracy is defined as a system of majoritarian rule, the people need to be able to engage in political debate to be able to make better collective decisions about how they are to be governed. The fact that expired teargas was used against government workers protesting peacefully for a review of wages, as is their fundamental right, is as dangerous to the sustainability of democracy as reporters not being allowed to cover certain stories.

The idea of a group of reporters, from various TV channels and print outlets, sheepishly raising their hands to indicate that they are not free to do their jobs in this country is interesting on its own. Because being restricted in reporting the facts also applies to talking about who or what is preventing one from doing so and why. Is it therefore a welcome relief to have an apex court judge to hide behind in order to admit that one does not represent a free, fair and independent press? Or is being asked this question in such a manner an indication that one has already lost the battle for one’s freedom?

We are left with the question of what to do now that the silence has been broken. If, according to Justice Isa’s informal poll, most of the press don’t believe that they are free to do their jobs, what do they intend to do about it? As the constant stream that is the 24-hour news cycle inevitably drifts away from this story, it is important to identify the connections between the new undemocratic precedents that are being set and their wide-ranging and potentially long-lasting ramifications. It’s necessary for the courts to take an active interest in assuring press freedom for a state to remain democratic. It is also necessary for the media to keep an eye on whether the judiciary is beholden first and foremost to the constitution. In the lawyers’ movement of 2007-2009, we saw the media, civil society and the legal community come together as a powerful force for the restoration of democracy. That may again be the need of the hour.

The writer is a staff member. She can be found on Instagram @amar.alam_literally