" I remember, , when the press bill was introduced......, much as we felt that our most prized liberty, namely, the liberty of the press was going to be curtailed, our hands were tied, our mouths were closed.... , I believe in criticising government freely and frankly, but at the same time that is the duty of every educated man to support the government when the government is right..." (Quaid-e-Azam M. A. Jinnah in the legislative council, 1913)

There are 16 statuary provisions of law in Pakistan that might restrict presspersons' capability to inflict excesses upon members of general public or groups. Their misuse by successive governments is, though, a different story, which we skip here, when the government is hard pushing its idea of establishing a press council. The big question arises as to who bears the responsibility of press mal-practice, blackmailing, absence of an information act to ensure free flow of information in the public domain, non-implementation of the wage award, inadequate working conditions and failure of turning journalism into a decent means of living in Pakistan? Naturally, fingers point out to the governments, as they are the ones who by law after law have controlled the Pakistani press since its inception, and have been declining any responsibility shifted towards the press sector itself. Whereas, the very concept of media self-regulation i.e. establishing a press council, intrinsically, is woven around a responsible and free press in a democratic setup ever since it first emerged in Sweden in 1916.

The press councils are regarded as bodies keeping watch over press vagaries. In most of the democracies, they have been formed as either voluntary or statuary bodies, in any case with no penal powers; they act like a court of honour. Whereas, the proposed draft of Pakistani press council renders it to have, " powers of civil court to issue injunctions to editors, publishers, printers, reporters and working journalists," as stated in the proposed draft. The status of the press council would be equivalent to that of a High Court. In case of non-compliance of the recommendation/ decision of the Press Committee, it can take any decision it deemed necessary, it adds.

In western countries, the press and public have voluntarily established the press council _ implying a council backed up by the publishers, editors, journalists, distinguished members and groups of the society or their other variations.
In the United Kingdom, complaints are processed and actions taken by a Press Complaints Commission (PCC), funded by the Press Standard Board of Finance (PRESSBOF), the publishers' body charged with raising levy on the newspapers and magazine industry to finance the PCC. An Appointments Commission headed by the chairman PCC with one member from the PRESSBOF and three public nominees recruits the commission.

Founded in 1997, PCC has inherited the legacy of a British press council, established in 1953, which was dissolved and reshaped into the present commission because of its ineffectiveness. The commission now resists any temptation to give itself more powers. The present Chairman PCC, Lord Wakeham's remarks elaborate this point quite well when he said: "What all such ideas have in common is that they would turn the Press Complaints Commission into a Press Control Commission." 
One needs to study more closely the fluctuations and changing shifts of British press self-regulatory system which has changed its course from a press council to the PCC.

The heart of the problem there rested with being less considerate to the public, while self-regulating the British press in the past. Perhaps that's why this lesson they have learnt from the 44 years of the British Press Council, has emerged at the forefront of the present commission; they have now officially adopted slogan of Serving the Public. Hence, any such council should be accountable to the public, readers in this particular instance, not before a self-righteous regime or group of proprietor-editors or even the working journalists. A coalition of all the stakeholders combined should face the public; that's the broader framework, which can guide us to a correct press council. That also means autonomy of the self-regulatory process in the press outside the realm of the state and market forces.

Similar theoretical underpinnings can be sited from the Australian Press Council (established in 1976), Minnesto News council (USA, established in 1971), British Columbia Press Council (Canada), World Association of Press Councils (1992) etc. In Japan, the Nilhon Shinbun Kyoki performs the functions of a press regulatory body. The United States, however, has no such national body, for the journalist associations think the press itself can handle complaints through newspaper mechanisms and their ombudsmen components, and remedy them. If the matter still persists to the dissatisfaction of the affected people, they have all options to go to the judiciary, which is independent and reputed to be very vigilant. Whilst, in our neighbouring India the press council (1978) is a statuary body that also claims to cover protecting the press freedom within its jurisdiction. Here, again, like its colonial predecessors, it took almost 22 years to establish the body there as the first press council bill was introduced in the Indian parliament far back in 1956. 

In Pakistan, also, the present government proposal to establish a press council is not the first of its kind efforts. Successive regimes have tried to enforce this idea for four times in 1963, 1966, 1976, and in the eighties. But they failed to muster public, especially the journalists' support. Given these experiences, one might state that any effort to administratively introduce such reforms is likely to be doomed to failure again if we haven't done our homework. Unfortunately, we haven't this time, either. 
We may categorize the process of proposed press council into seven key points:

1. Transparency: Before drafting the proposal, no visible consultation in the public domain was done except at very later stages APNS and CPNE were involved to perhaps have their approval on the nod. Both these organisations of newspaper owners are linked with the government by stakes of their own. The owners also happen to be the editors of their respective publications - a condition which is very peculiar to Pakistan and thus problematic. How should ne think of press reforms without working journalists being the part of it? Furthermore, the proposed draft also lacks consultation of other public bodies i.e. that the bar associations, judiciary, consumer groups, intellectuals etc., making it clear that the government is bent upon introducing an act without any public ownership.

Such is the secrecy of this process that no one really knows who has authored the proposed draft. Informed circles drop name of a certain journalist friend of the government, now owner-editor of an Urdu daily, but that is no way; especially, when you are dealing with the press whose very job is to inform than conceal.
2. Press-government divide: The government and press have a 25 years' history of disturbed relations. By leaving journalists out of the preparatory process, the government has kept its distance rather than engaging them formally. Because of that, the journalist representative bodies like Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) and Punjab Union of Journalists (PUJ) have out rightly rejected to negotiate the idea.
3. Conflict and ideology: A cursory look at the draft proposal's reference point, its code of ethics for press, reveals that the code is one-sided, politically motivated and has certain ideological impulses that borders upon religious orthodoxy. It might not even be the agenda of Muslim League of Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

The terms like 'national interest', religious and cultural norms and values, 'sectarian parochial, provincial, ethnic or class hatred' and 'violence' are such big and vague words that arbitrariness would prevail and the judge in situation would give verdict according to his/her own taste, orientation or affiliation. This might generate conflict and promote sectarianism in an already conflict-prone country. Instead, we should have inducted neutral, concrete and peculiar jargon directly related with the press issues. PFUJ's code of ethics is a far better example in this regard.
Given the political nature of the proposed code of ethics, there is lesser space available to genuine issues of media intrusion - the complaints based upon the individual and human rights, from minorities and women for example. It would cater to the needs of powerful groups and not those of the vulnerable sections of our society.
4. Extraneous mechanism: Every mainstream publication has its own monitoring units to what they cover - an arrangement close to the concept of news ombudsmen prevalent in the western press. However, the proposed council misses out any possibility of reforms at the newspaper level. Rather than strengthening the available mechanisms, the proposed council acts like a foreign element of change. It would discourage fair competition among the newspapers and thus reform from within the system. As a result, the race to win government patronage will accelerate. 
5. Selective process: The state controls electronic media in Pakistan whose outreach it far too larger than the print media. In the absence of any such regulatory body for the electronic media, the process of setting up the proposed council raises legitimate suspicions about the government's intentions to 'reform' the press. 
6. Higher cost for readers: The costs of the proposed council will in fact be paid not by the government but will be passed on to the public.
7. Remedy: The government should immediately broaden the base of its consultative process on the matter, including journalists and members of other public organisations, and circulate the proposed draft for public recommendations.