Pakistani Political Communication and Public Opinion on US Drone Attacks

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that Pakistanis are overwhelmingly opposed to American drone strikes in their country’s tribal areas and that this opposition is driven by mass media coverage of the loss of life and property the strikes purportedly cause. Using an approach based in the literature in political communication and public opinion, we argue this conventional wisdom is largely inaccurate. Instead, we contend that awareness of drone strikes will be limited because Pakistan is a poor country with low educational attainment, high rates of illiteracy and persistent infrastructure problems that limit access to mass media. Moreover, because of these same country characteristics, Pakistanis’ beliefs about drone strikes will be shaped primarily by informal, face-to-face political communication, rather than through more formal media sources. We test this argument using data that we collected by fielding a 7,656 respondent, nationally-representative survey carried out in Pakistan in 2013. The results of the statistical analysis support our arguments.

Key Words:

• Drones
• Pakistan
• Political Information
• Public Opinion
• Counter-terrorism

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Notes

¹ Under President George W. Bush, the United States launched a total of 47 drone strikes. After Obama assumed office in 2009, the CIA launched 52 in that year alone. CIA drone strikes peaked in 2010 with 122 and then decreased to 73 in 2011, 48 in 2012 and 27 in 2013. There have been no drone strikes in 2014, at the time of writing (New America Foundation, ‘Pakistan Drone Strikes: Bush vs. Obama’ (nd), <http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis>).

² S. Masood, and I.T. Mehsud, ‘Thousands in Pakistan Protest American Drone Strikes’, New York Times, 13 Nov. 2013, <www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/world/asia/in-pakistan-rally-protests-drone-strikes.html?_r=0>; J. Serle, ‘Drone strikes in Pakistan: Pakistan drone strike pause is the longest of Obama’s presidency’, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 18 Feb. 2014, <www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/02/18/pakistan-drone-strike-pause-is-the-longest-of-obama-presidency/>

³ ‘Violating sovereignty: Drones report validates PPP stance’ Pakistan Express Tribune, 24 Oct. 2013, <http://tribune.com.pk/story/621708/violating-sovereignty-drones-report-validates-ppp-stance/>

⁴ For a more complicated discussion of US drone bases in Pakistan, see International Crisis Group, Drones–Myth and Reality (2013), <www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2013/asia/drones-myths-and-reality-in-pakistan.aspx>.

⁵ ‘Drone attacks must stop: Nawaz’, Pakistan Express Tribune, 9 June 2013, <http://tribune.com.pk/story/560824/drone-attacks-must-stop-nawaz/>.

⁶ International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School & Global Justice Clinic at NYU School of Law, Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan (2012), <www.livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Stanford-NYU-Living-Under-Drones.pdf>.

⁷ C.C. Fair, K. Kaltenthaler and W. Miller, ‘Pakistani Opposition to American Drone Strikes’, Political Science Quarterly 129/1 (2014), 1–33.

⁸ S.M. Rawan, ‘Modern Mass Media and Traditional Communication in Afghanistan’, Political Communication 19/2 (2002), 155–70.

⁹ Central Intelligence Agency, World Fact Book – Pakistan (2014), <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html>.

¹⁰ See methodological note on p. 35 of Pew Research Global Attitudes Project (2012).

¹¹ Fair et al., ‘Pakistani Opposition to American Drone Strikes’.

¹² While the survey was formally fielded in Urdu, enumerators practiced translating the questions in their relevant vernacular languages to ensure that they could explain survey items in the language that was most comfortable for the respondents.

¹³ American National Election Studies, 2008 Time Series Study [Data file, 2008], <http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/2008prepost/2008prepost.htm>.

¹⁴ J. Zaller, ‘Political Awareness, Elite Opinion, and the Mass Survey Response’, Social Cognition 8/1 (1990), 125–53.

¹⁵ P. Converse, ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in David Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent (London: International Yearbook of Political Behavior 1964); M. Delli Carpini and S. Keeter, ‘Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First’, American Journal of Political Science 37/3 (1993), 1179–1206; W. Eveland, ‘The Effect of Political Discussion in Producing Informed Citizens: The Roles of Information, Motivation, and Elaboration’, Political Communication 21/2 (2004), 177–93.

¹⁶ S. Gordon and G. Segura, ‘Cross-national Variation in the Political Sophistication of Individuals: Capability or Choice?’, Journal of Politics 59/1 (1997), 126–47; K. Grönland and H. Milner, ‘The Determinants of Political Knowledge in Comparative Perspective’, Scandinavian Political Studies 29/4 (2006), 386–406; J. McCann and C. Lawson, ‘Presidential Campaigns and the Knowledge Gap in Three Democracies’, Political Research Quarterly 59/1 (2006), 13–22; S. Nicholson, ‘The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness’, American Journal of Political Science 47/3 (2003), 403–10; F. Solt, ‘Economic Inequality and Political Engagement’, American Journal of Political Science 53/1 (2008), 48–60; S. Verba, K.L. Schlozman, and H. Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge: CUP 1995).

¹⁷ McCann and Lawson, ‘Presidential Campaigns and the Knowledge Gap in Three Democracies’, 13–22.

¹⁸ R. Dahl, On Political Equality (New Haven, CT: Yale UP 2006); J. Gaventa, Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press 1980); Solt, ‘Economic Inequality and Political Engagement’, 48–60; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, Voice and Equality.

¹⁹ Dahl, On Political Equality.

²⁰ Solt, ‘Economic Inequality and Political Engagement’, 48–60; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, Voice and Equality.

²¹ R. Dalton, Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Washington DC: CQ Press 2008); R. Inglehart, ‘The Renaissance of Political Culture’, American Political Science Review 2/4 (1988), 1203–30; J. Jost, ‘The End of the End of Ideology’, American Psychologist 61/7 (2006), 651–70.

²² S. Iyengar, Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues (Univ. of Chicago Press 1991); W. Jacoby, ‘Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending’, American Journal of Political Science 44/4 (1991), 750–67; J. McLeod, D. Scheufele and P. Moy, ‘Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation’, Political Communication 16 (1999), 315–36; T. Nelson, R. Clawson and Z. Oxley, ‘Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance’, American Political Science Review 91/3 (1997), 567–83; T. Nelson and Z. Oxley, ‘Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion’, Journal of Politics 61/4 (1999), 1040–67; D. Scheufele, ‘Framing as a Theory of Media Effects’, Journal of Communication 49/1 (1999), 103–22; D. Scheufele and D. Tewksbury, ‘Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models’, Journal of Communication 57/1 (2006), 9–20; Zaller, ‘Political Awareness, Elite Opinion, and the Mass Survey Response’, 125–53; J. Zaller, ‘Information, Values, and Opinion’, American Political Science Review 85/4 (1991), 1215–37; J. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge: CUP 1992).

²³ A. Lupia, The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? (Cambridge: CUP 1998).

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ W.L. Bennet and S. Iyengar, ‘A New Ear of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication’, Journal of Communication 58/4 (2008), 707–31; W. Eveland, A. Hayes, D. Shah and N. Kwak, ‘Understanding the Relationship between Communication and Political Knowledge: A Model Comparison Using Panel Data’, Political Communication 22/4 (2005), 423–46; Iyengar, Is Anyone Responsible?; Jacoby, ‘Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending’, American Journal of Political Science, 750–67; McLeod et al., ‘Community, Communication, and Participation’, 315–36; Nelson et al., ‘Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance’, 567–83; Nelson and Oxley, ‘Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion’, 1040–67; Scheufele, ‘Framing as a Theory of Media Effects’, 103–22; D. Scheufele and D. Tewksbury, ‘Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models’, Journal of Communication 57/1 (2006), 9–20.

²⁶ R. Huckfeldt and J. Sprague, Citizens, Contexts, and Social Communication (Cambridge: CUP 1995); Huckfeldt et al., ‘Political Environments, Political Dynamics, and the Survival of Disagreement’, Journal of Politics 64/1 (2002), 1–21; R. Huckfeldt, ‘The Social Communication of Political Expertise’, American Journal of Political Science 45/2 (2001), 425–38; A. Zuckerman (ed.), The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior (Philadelphia, PA: Temple UP 2005); A. Zuckerman, ‘The Social Logic of Political Choice: Picking a Political Party in the Context of Immediate Social Circles’, Politische Viertelsjahschrift 4 (2007), 633–49.

²⁷ Zuckerman, The Social Logic of Politics.

²⁸ Rawan, ‘Modern Mass Media and Traditional Communication in Afghanistan’, 155–70.

²⁹ UNESCO, Country Profiles – Pakistan (2014), <www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=PAK&regioncode=40535>.

³⁰ Social Policy and Development Centre, Social Development in Pakistan: Annual Review 2011–12 (2012), <www.spdc.org.pk/Publications/Annual%20Reviews/AR%2011.pdf>.

³¹ World Bank, Gross National Income 2012, Atlas Method (2014), <http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GNI.pdf>.

³² World Bank, Access to Electricity (% of Population) (2014) <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS>.

³³ D. Walsh and S. Masood, ‘Pakistan Struggles to Keep Its Lights On’, New York Times, 27 May 2013, p.6.

³⁴ M. Anwar and M. Jan, ‘Role of Media in Political Socialization: The Case of Pakistan’, Dialogue 5/3 (2010), 212–27; G. Murthy, ‘Pakistan News Television: Who’s Watching?’, Country Profiles: Pakistan, Audiencescapes (2011); H. Shah, ‘Inside Pages: An Analysis of the Pakistani Press’, South Asia Monitor, (2011), <http://csis.org/files/publication/sam_148.pdf>; H. Shah, ‘Inside Pages: An Analysis of the Pakistani Press’; South Asia Monitor, <http://csis.org/files/publication/sam_148.pdf>; S.A. Siraj, ‘Critical Analysis of Press Freedom in Pakistan’, Journal of Media and Communication Studies 1/3 (2009), 43–7; H. Yusuf, ‘Conspiracy Fever: The US, Pakistan, and Its Media’, Survival 53/4 (2011), 95–118.

³⁵ We analyzed the ‘don’t know/ no answer’ responses to this question to determine if there seemed to be a social desirability effect or the responses indicated that the respondent really did not know how to answer. We used a regression analysis and included education, general political knowledge, and demographic controls in the model. The ‘don’t know/no answer’ responses were very clearly predicted by education and general political knowledge. Thus, the responses of ‘don’t know/no answer’ indicate that respondents chose this response category because they did not believe they had enough information to take a position on the issue rather than feeling like they did not want to answer the question because it was too politically sensitive.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

C. Christine Fair

C. Christine Fair is an assistant professor at the Security Studies Program within the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. She has published widely on South Asian security issues and is the author of Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War (forthcoming, Oxford University Press).

Karl Kaltenthaler

Karl Kaltenthaler is professor of political science at the University of Akron and adjunct professor of political science at Case Western Reserve University. He has published several books and articles on public opinion, terrorism and political economy.

William Miller

William J. Miller is director of institutional research and effectiveness at Flagler College. He has published on political attitudes toward various public policies in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East in leading journals.