Is Pakistan’s Surveillance of Its Citizens Security or Tyranny?

New Delhi, Sep 13 (NationPress) The record of Pakistan’s current civil-military regime presents a daunting outlook for the nation’s future. It faces a choice: continue emulating China’s model of digital authoritarianism, which erodes democratic ideals, or confront the harsh truth that surveillance without oversight is not security but tyranny, as highlighted in a recent report.

For many years, Pakistan has been under scrutiny for its espionage efforts against its citizens. Initially, these actions were somewhat random—such as bugged hotel rooms, leaked phone conversations, and sporadic internet disruptions, according to the report by The Milli Chronicle.

However, this has now evolved into a sophisticated surveillance framework bolstered by cutting-edge technologies and international collaborations.

The crux of this evolution is Pakistan’s increasing reliance on China.

Regarded as the global architect of digital authoritarianism, Beijing has become more than just a financial and military ally; it is a pivotal provider of instruments that enable governments to manipulate the flow of information.

Through its Digital Silk Road initiative, China has disseminated surveillance technologies, firewalls, and censorship models to nations like Pakistan.

In 2023, Pakistan debuted the Web Monitoring System 2.0 (WMS 2.0), developed in partnership with Chinese firms like Geedge Networks and the state-run China Electronics Corporation.

This system, akin to China’s Great Firewall, possesses the capability to block websites, identify VPNs, and restrict internet traffic.

Rather than merely censoring content, it is structured to identify and quash dissent before it can proliferate.

Yet, Chinese technologies are not the sole instruments in use. Pakistan has also integrated European-developed surveillance frameworks, such as the Lawful Intercept Management System (LIMS), which can monitor the digital activities of millions simultaneously.

While European nations impose limitations on the deployment of these systems, Pakistan operates without such protections, granting its intelligence agencies almost unrestricted power to surveil citizens.

Authorities justify these actions in the name of national security, but the primary targets tend to be journalists, human rights advocates, and political opponents.

Incidents of leaked WhatsApp conversations, obstructed investigative reports, and the harassment of activists have become increasingly prevalent.

In Balochistan, entire areas experience internet outages lasting months or even years, isolating communities from the outside world and stifling movements against enforced disappearances.

Critics argue that this is not about combating terrorism, but rather about shielding the military from accountability.

By adopting China’s approach, Pakistan distances itself from democracy and normalizes the perception that dissent is a criminal act.

The implications stretch beyond Pakistan’s borders. If a fragile democracy like Pakistan endorses Chinese-style digital authoritarianism, it sends a message to other nations that oppression can be imported while democracy can be circumvented.

Pakistan now stands at a critical juncture. It can opt for transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law — or it can persist in constructing a surveillance state that stifles its citizens.

Currently, the latter option appears more alluring to those in power. However, in selecting this path, Pakistan risks sacrificing its democratic aspirations for a future characterized by fear and repression.