digital platforms

Every time I log into my social media accounts, my newsfeed is filled with relentless political debates, rhetoric, and hatred, all thank to the digital revolution. As a result of this revolution, media consumption now takes place in the palm of our hands. There is no doubt that digital platforms, specifically social media, have led to greater connectivity and projection of one’s thoughts and views, but at the same time, these platforms have also become a breeding ground for polarisation and information pollution.

Digital media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Tik Tok, YouTube, etc. allow users to post without any restriction. This has facilitated the increase of hate, bullying, character assault, derogatory remarks, racism, and provided anti-state elements opportunity to propagate their narratives openly. Political parties and politicians also use these platforms to malign their opponents by posting objectionable and indecent content online to hurt them politically.

In this regard, several research studies in the United Kingdom and United States consider social media highly effective in affecting political discourse and spreading political sectarianism.  An article published in the journal ‘Trends in Cognitive Sciences’ sees social media as a key facilitator of polarisation. Similarly, it has become an important tool in political campaigns to connect with voters, especially the youth. A RUSI analyst pointed out that 39% of the adults used social media purely to discuss politics and cited Rafael Behr who noted that in the US, Twitter enabled ‘opinion silos, deep but narrow socially homogeneous echo chambers, held together by similar political assumptions.’

In Pakistan, the use of social media for political communication has grown over the last few years. For instance, in 2016, Panama Leaks was the most debatable and hot topic both on traditional and social media. The propagation and dissemination of news on social media influenced the perception of the public, especially youth. Pakistan has 64 percent of the population below 30 years of age. These stats are attractive for any political party to harness the support of young people of the country. In the 2018 elections, social media was used as a primary tool in political campaigns. Three common social media trends were seen during the 2018 election campaign i.e., hate speech, traducement, and promoting violence against each other on social media for gaining an edge over a political rival.

In the same vein, the current episode of political turmoil in Pakistan has also stormed social media, as users are getting into a ferocious exchange of arguments and criticism based on political affiliations. These current trends on social media manifest that the platforms are fueling political polarisation in society. This power of social media platforms to amplify narratives has provided political parties to manipulate social media and its policies for their political objectives. Unfortunately, state institutions are also being targeted that give space to hostile elements to exploit the current division within Pakistani society. Political parties have formulated separate social compartments and youth wings to counter and create their own online narrative. The active use of social media by political parties has turned these spaces into a war zone of narratives.

This political polarisation is affecting Pakistan’s societal harmony to a dangerous level as it is threatening its national integration where forged pictures, videos, and documents become facts without investigation and are used by the parties to amplify their point of view. Information pollution and misinformation have enabled political parties to spread false narratives against each other. Instead of criticising party policies, politicians and their supporters make personal attacks on the opponents, thus further polarising society. Similarly, blame games to gain public support up to the extent where religion and personal affairs are used to manipulate the sentiments of the public has become a norm. However, while such tactics have remained part of politics, the real test lies in limiting it while upholding civility and democratic norms.

Hence, to counter political polarisation and politicisation of digital platforms, a consensus among all political actors is required to discourage hate speech and below the belt attacks on opponents on social media. Moreover, there is a strong need of working on regulating social media platforms in the vital national interest. Otherwise, in the absence of accountability and regulatory mechanisms, national integration, would increasingly be prone to disharmony and disarray.

Amna Tauhidi is a researcher at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »