The constitution, laws, media laws and their subsequent amendment is a matter of public interest and concern in those societies who honestly intend to enforce them across the board and without discrimination. In countries like Pakistan military regimes have frequently used the jargon of law and so-called legal and constitutional orders to showcase to the world that there exists rule of law in the country. When the military takes over, the constitution is declared to have been ‘suspended’ or ‘held in abeyance’ and blatant subversion of constitution and acts of treason are cloaked under the so-called provisional constitution orders which in the same breath are shamelessly and boldly described by the dictators and their legal touts as extra-constitutional measures. 
The political parties because of their own limitation, civil society for its ignorance of laws, the media for its business, and the international community for its selfish strategic interests directly and indirectly, consciously and subconsciously become part of the new political dispensation. Afraid of indecent exposure of their lack of street power the political parties avoid direct confrontation with the military regime. The civil society for lack of credibility and knowledge about laws demand undoing of the so-called legal measures from the perpetrators as if they did it things will be back to normal. It is like a thief being asked to put back the stolen goods to avoid prosecution. Similarly, media, especially the cross media owners, for their own business interest start selling the words like suspension of constitution, emergency, sacked or deposed judges, new chief justice, etc, in their daily reports. Courtesy media the de-jure situation always gradually overshadows the de-facto situation in the minds of the people like we have seen it in 1977, 1988, and 1999. The international community too for their selfish strategic goals care less about the genuine democracy. Just like the military rulers the international community never encouraged a full blown political process that would see millions of people out on the street in support of their political leadership. For the world community, especially the US government a full blown political or electoral process can be no less damaging to their interest than the Iranian revolution of 1979. Hence such martial laws-cum-emergencies, disabled judiciary and uprooted political parties offering a handicapped political mandate to the political leadership.
Under the above circumstances, it would be naive for the analysts or experts to talk about merits of the so-called legal regime or to suggest that the present situation is the result of either the implementation of the so-called laws or the lack of it. Therefore, the demands by the opposition for withdrawal of such ‘legal’ measures by the government only seem absurd and unnecessary.    
The situation facing media is no different. It would be wrong to assume that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 was draconian because it was being strictly implemented. Even if it was draconian the authority never bothered to assert its prescribed role through due process of law. The federal and provincial governments through police and intelligence agencies frequently harassed and shut down TV radio broadcasters and cable distributors rather than invoking PEMRA Authority, its code of conduct, rules and procedures. Hence, to say that the new laws if withdrawn will make a difference is not a valid expectation.
 Similarly, a dictator who subverts constitution or as he says "suspends" it has no right to accuse its citizens of violating some media code of conduct and punish them for the same. A state whose constitutional functionaries take "oath" on more than one constitution more than once, like a bath towel being dropped and picked up again and again, has no right to ask its citizens to abide by laws. In the same way if a dictator thinks that some "amendments" in the constitution are going to protect him from future constitution, he is mistaken. It is only that when political parties and some judges become part, and hence the beneficiary, of  the unconstitutional process that the dictators get away with their crime.
To talk about and debate media laws under such circumstances reminds me of a kind hearted philosopher who trained over hundred parrots to shout “hum shikari kay narkil peh naheen baithein gay aur agar bathein gay to phur say urr jaeen gay” (we will not sit on hunters trap and if we did we will immediately fly away). The next day the poor philosopher found all his trained parrots caught in the trap and parroting his lessons. Every time I see same judges taking oath after oath to “defend and protect the constitution” I am reminded of these parrots. Similarly, every time military rulers introduce some media laws media starts protesting, debating on merits, and negotiating with the rulers to fine-tune of the so-called laws. In such a situation journalists and media owners' position is no different from those of the poor parrots who thought that mere shouting such words of wisdom might convince the hunter.
Now coming to the de-facto situation facing media. Before the imposition of martial law on November 3, 2007 people were expecting that the private media including over 40 TV channels and 80 community FM radio stations across Pakistan would inject a new lease of life into the electoral process. Today, unfortunately, these media outlets, many of them closed and shut down, particularly the news giving radio and TV channels, are airing music and entertainment programmes. Political parties manifestoes have been launched but in the absence of full-blown media debate on these they have become irrelevant. As political rallies are banned, people are afraid to come out on the streets in support of their leaders, some parties are are boycotting elections, and if their is a last moment rumours on polling day, the stifling of media in such a situation will only multiply and reinforce the fears of election rigging and resultant chaos in the country after the elections.        
What should be done then? It is simple. The real issue is not some decree or law given by a dictator; the real issue is subversion of the constitution and the democratic process. It is here that the media has always failed the people by only raising voice against some media laws and not for the cause of the constitution. This is why the media campaign for the freedom of expression and access to information has never succeeded because people always considered these as media's problem and not their's. The media, especially the national media, must out rightly reject the unconstitutional actions of military rulers and join the political parties and other citizens group in protests against martial laws rather than pretending to be balanced and impartial. Once the constitution is subverted it is the national obligation of all citizens including media owners and journalists to fight against it instead of pretending to be impartial and neutral observers. The journalistic principles of balance and impartiality are not applicable to the national media under the military rule. It is wrong to assume that the views of an elected prime minister who has been removed by force need to be balanced with those of a dictator. If media cannot openly fight for the cause of citizens then it should not expect the citizens to come out on roads to join them in difficult times.     
The political parties, civil society, media and the people should never get trapped into the military rulers jargon. They should call a spade a spade, a martial law a martial law, a constitutional chief justice a chief justice and a general retired a general retired. To begin with the media bodies, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and International Journalists Federation (IFJ) should declare once and for all that in case of such unconstitutional authoritarian regimes taking over, the media should not accept the de-facto situation into their day-to-day journalistic expressions as a de-jure dispensation. Military rulers be described as dictators, not presidents, constitutional judges be described as judges and not former or deposed judges, and subversion of constitution be described as subversion of constitution and not some suspension or abeyance of constitution.
All these options will only be available to the media once the media bodies are united. Rather than waiting for restrictions and sanctions from the government these media bodies should pre-empt such restrictions by announcing similar measures against military rulers. These measures should include declarations that constitutional offices and personalities even if removed by force will always be described by media as constitutional entities. Unless we are able to do this no amount of analysis and commentary on the merits and demerits of laws or media laws will help the society improve the situation.
Media must not become a party to dictators’ efforts to unnecessarily pacify the people. Pacifying the nation may be necessary at times but to desensitize and depoliticize them through use of official jargons or when the governments gag the people through brute force has consequences. Such a policy may ultimately lead to a docile population that will prefer to watch it on cable TV as entertainment rather than fighting shoulder to shoulder with army Jawans for freedom against a foreign aggression. No army should instil fear in the hearts of citizens by teaching them to be submissive and docile.  Citizens should never get used to the army rule because if today they can be ruled by their own army, tomorrow they can be ruled by any army. If you are a cruel father, your child, if abused, will neither have resisted it nor reported it to you. The reason is simple. He or she is not trained to resist and shout.
Islamabad based senior journalist who specialises in media laws and court reporting. He can reached at E-mail: matiullahjan@gmail.com