SMOKERS’ CORNER: Serving the State Rather Than the Timeline

The history of political communication demonstrates that tools designed for campaign mobilisation often make poor instruments for governance. A strong case study in this regard is the tenure of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) as a ruling party from 2018 till its removal in April 2022.

Having risen to power through a powerful digital campaign that redefined political participation in Pakistan, the PTI government revealed a stark example of how the mechanisms that drive social media engagement are rather opposed to the requirements of effective governance.

Other parties aiming to govern effectively must extract a crucial lesson from PTI’s administrative struggles as it tried to enact governance and durable policymaking. Therefore, even in the ‘digital age’, the current government must make a deliberate break from social media platforms, or limit its presence there.

As was the case during the PTI regime, an active presence on digital platforms undermines governance. To understand this, one must examine the dynamics of ‘digital populism.’ A noted research on digital media and political polarisation by the American academic and media expert Silvio Waisbord highlights how platforms such as X (previously Twitter) and Facebook “reward anger, immediate emotional resonance and simplified binaries.”

As Pakistan continues to navigate an intensely polarised digital political environment, the government must establish a deliberate separation between the demands of social media algorithms and the slow work of governing

On the other hand, effective governance and policymaking rely on thoughtful deliberation, bureaucratic routine and consensual compromises. But in contrast, during its time in government, PTI remained trapped in what British political scientist Pippa Norris terms the “permanent campaign mode”, or what Pakistani political commentator Najam Sethi rephrased as “permanent movement mode.”

Rather than transitioning from protest/electoral mobilisation to institutional policymaking, the party’s decision-makers remained fixated with 24/7 digital metrics. Policy proposals were frequently drafted and then suddenly modified and, on multiple occasions, abandoned altogether, based on trending hashtags. The party turned governance into a reactive exercise dictated by digital feedback loops.

The ‘Public Choice Theory’ suggests that algorithms prioritise high-variance, emotionally charged content to maximise user attention. When a government places its feedback mechanisms on these platforms, it drags government policy towards obvious demonstrations of bias.

For example, the PTI government’s so-called ‘anti-corruption drive’ turned accountability into a digital spectacle, using social media metrics and online performance to showcase high-profile arrests. Due to the fact that these platforms prioritise emotional outrage, the PTI government tailored its actions to instant feedback loops, pursuing retribution against political rivals to satisfy online supporters.

The platform algorithm favours simplistic positioning over complex foundational reform. Actual economic stabilisation and administrative overhaul are inherently slow, unglamorous processes that do not translate well into short-form content. By prioritising immediate validation on digital platforms, PTI frequently used symbolic communications, such as digital anti-corruption and moralistic drives, in the name of reform.

According to the German political theorist Jürgen Habermas, the public sphere is a space where rational discourse leads to democratic consensus. But contemporary digital spaces represent a distorted version of this sphere, dominated by echo chambers and abject polarisation. When a ruling party fails to remove itself from such an environment, political communication spirals into performative antagonism.

Cabinet ministers and policymakers become content creators tasked with defending daily party narratives rather than managing their respective ministries. This results in unstable and inconsistent policy outcomes. Also, long-term planning is continually disrupted by short-term controversies generated online.

The mechanics of digital populism have not faded with PTI’s removal from power in 2022. Instead, they have evolved into a permanent feature of the political arena. Since its departure from government and the subsequent legal proceedings involving its top leader, PTI has continued to deploy digital platforms to maintain a vocal base.

Rather than moving toward conventional parliamentary oversight, the party operates in a state of continuous friction. Social media is leveraged not merely to question policy but to construct alternative narratives, challenge state institutions and sustain highly emotional engagement. By treating every political development as a serious crisis, it maintains pressure on traditional media and public discourse, effectively forcing the state to respond on digital terms.

To govern effectively while facing a loud, digitalised opposition, the sitting government must establish a clear policy framework that insulates administrative strategy from public relations skirmishes. Governance requires a separation between economic planning and the daily outrage cycles of online platforms. The government must rely on official briefings and documented policy measures rather than permitting individual cabinet members to engage in digital disputes. The rulers’ attention must remain grounded in larger economic, political and social goals, ensuring that public administration is driven by long-term outcomes rather than algorithmic metrics.

The task of managing a digital opposition demands that state institutions cultivate structured resilience against digital provocations. When opposition messaging is shaped around high-velocity digital campaigns, sitting governments are frequently baited into deploying state machinery or reactive media campaigns to control the narrative.

This is an error. Attempting to match an opposition’s digital tempo dilutes the government’s focus and swings its resources toward public relations. A prudent government policy must establish clear boundaries, prohibiting civil servants and key ministries from altering policy implementation in response to social media rhetoric. Government credibility is preserved through quiet operational continuity rather than digital retaliation.

A well-thought-out strategy must be designed to make sure that a communication framework is clearly differentiated from anarchic public feedback and algorithmically amplified rage. Modern digital spaces are heavily manipulated by coordinated networks and an outrage architecture that are formed to create false impressions of broad public sentiment. They are mostly manufactured. By institutionalising offline platforms for public consultation, the state can bypass algorithmic distortions. This approach deprives digital agitators of their primary leverage point: the claim that online trends represent the unvarnished voice of the populace. They often don’t.

The hazard for any administration facing a hyper-mobilised digital opposition remains the temptation to mimic its tactics. Entering an algorithmic arms race leads directly to policy degradation, as government responses become short-term, erratic and reactive.

The classic ‘politics-administration dichotomy’ was articulated by the early 20th century German sociologist Max Weber and he emphasised that “sustainable public administration relies on institutional durability, procedure and insulation from transient political conflicts.” Engaging in continuous digital combat ultimately validates the opposition’s preferred arena, shifting public focus away from foundational governance towards perpetual political friction. Stable governance inherently requires measured deliberations, all of which are eroded when executive focus is diverted by online trends.

Long-term statecraft depends on the sitting administration’s discipline to maintain a firm boundary between state policy and online discourse, ensuring that the government serves the state rather than the timeline. Online, government departments need to sidestep what PTI’s digital storms are always trying to drag them into.

Published in Dawn, EOS, August 30th, 2026