In Pakistan, the issue of distinguishing between right and wrong has become increasingly enigmatic, complex, and difficult to navigate. This problem pervades all levels of society, from the lower-middle class to the elite. Adding to this complexity is the prevalence of what is known as implausible deniability, also referred to as pantomime secrecy in political circles. This practice is often observed within Pakistan’s political system, where state actors may carry out actions that are not publicly acknowledged but are intentionally made known to the public, creating a translucent veil of secrecy and uncertainty.
While this practice may have some benefits for institutions, such as adding communicative value, injecting uncertainty into domestic or foreign relations, creating fear among the public domestically, or steering election results, it may also have unintended consequences. It often leads to a ‘paranoid style’ of politics in Pakistan, where people are increasingly suspicious and mistrustful of their leaders, institutions, and the political system as a whole. This can have a profound impact on the stability of the country and the public’s faith in the institutions to make decisions in their best interest.
Institutions often utilise unofficial narratives to communicate and disseminate knowledge without officially acknowledging it. These narratives are aided by implausible deniability and are often employed to cater to domestic audiences. It is not uncommon for certain institutions to resort to leaks and planted stories as a means of conveying confidential information without having to face the potential consequences of an official acknowledgement. These tactics are often employed as a way to circumvent official channels of communication and to discreetly transfer sensitive information to the intended recipients.
Recent events in the political and judicial spheres have brought to light the existence of a classified fear programme that is under the control of unnamed officials. In some cases, institutions go to extreme lengths to ensure that their messages are communicated effectively. This may include implanting individuals who can serve as messengers and help spread the institution’s message. These individuals are often carefully selected and trained to convey the message in a way that is both effective and persuasive. The ultimate goal of this approach is to ensure that the institution’s message is heard and understood by as many people as possible, with the hope of achieving the desired outcome or objective.
However, if these actions were to be openly acknowledged, it could potentially lead to condemnation, escalation, and retaliation by both the domestic and international community. Therefore, ambiguity and implausible deniability are employed to create space for myths to emerge and allow fear to take hold. This approach enables institutions to construct powerful narratives that can shape and influence public opinion. By creating space for myths to emerge, institutions can manipulate public perception and control the narrative. This tactic is also employed to spread fear and anxiety among the general public, which can have detrimental consequences for society and the political system as a whole.
This lack of clarity can have serious constitutional implications, as it can undermine the principles of transparency, fairness, and due process that are essential to any legal or political system. And, potentially, damaging the institution’s reputation and eroding public trust. This is because people need to know who is responsible for making important decisions and taking actions that affect their lives. If they do not have this information, they may lose confidence in the system and those who run it.
In the present-day world, civil society has transformed into a globalized entity, where investigative journalists, human rights lawyers, and whistleblowers can easily communicate and collaborate with each other. This has been made possible due to the advent of advanced technological tools that have made information sharing and dissemination a lot easier than ever before. As a result, there has been a noticeable increase in the challenges against state secrecy and implausible deniability, which has made it more difficult for institutions to conceal their actions from the public.
However, despite claims of the ‘end of secrecy’, institutions across Pakistan are fighting back against journalists and whistleblowers, making it even more difficult for them to uncover the truth. These efforts by institutions have resulted in the creation of stringent laws and regulations, which aim to curb the freedom of the press and restrict the access to sensitive information. These changes in the media environment have important implications for understanding the actions of institutions, as it is not simply a matter of reducing secrecy, but rather a spectrum of visibility and acknowledgement. It is essential to recognise the challenges posed by the changing media landscape and work towards creating a more transparent and accountable system that upholds the principles of freedom of speech and the right to information.
The concept of “implausible deniability” has been observed as a strategy commonly employed by Pakistan’s institutions. It refers to the practice of denying any involvement or knowledge of controversial or illegal actions, even when evidence suggests otherwise. Essentially, it is a means for institutions to distance themselves from any perceived wrongdoing while still reaping the benefits of such actions. This strategy has been used in various political scenarios, as it provides a logical and politically advantageous defence to the institution. The term ‘implausible’ refers to the unlikelihood of the denial being true, while ‘deniability’ denotes the ability to deny involvement or knowledge of such actions. While this tactic is often criticised for being unethical, it has been used by institutions, particularly in situations where the actions of the institutions may be controversial or illegal.
This quandary poses a significant challenge in both analytical and practical domains. It creates ambiguity around accountability, making it difficult to assign responsibility for actions taken or decisions made. Additionally, it can obscure the identity of actors involved in a particular situation, further complicating efforts to determine responsibility.
This lack of clarity can have serious constitutional implications, as it can undermine the principles of transparency, fairness, and due process that are essential to any legal or political system. And, potentially, damaging the institution’s reputation and eroding public trust. This is because people need to know who is responsible for making important decisions and taking actions that affect their lives. If they do not have this information, they may lose confidence in the system and those who run it.
