Social media and fracturing of Pakistan’s political discourse | The Express Tribune

Political polarisation in Pakistan has intensified manifold since the ouster of former prime minister Imran Khan in 2022 through a no-confidence vote. A sharp divide emerged from this so-called democratic process, eroding the possibility of consensus even on matters of national security. As Hamra Tariq noted in Paradigm Shift, “The present time’s political polarization in Pakistan has made it extremely difficult to differentiate between manipulation and guidance”, with reason and evidence increasingly absent from public debate.

In this fragmented environment, social media has emerged not just as a mirror of division, but as its amplifier. A recent study by the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI), titled Impact of Social Media on Political Polarisation in Pakistan, offers a comprehensive analysis of how platforms like X, TikTok, Facebook and WhatsApp are reshaping political engagement and deepening ideological divides. The findings are both illuminating and sobering.

Between 2017 and 2025, Pakistan’s social media user base more than doubled —from 31 million to 66.9 million. This digital expansion has brought new voices into the political conversation, but it has also created echo chambers and filter bubbles that reinforce existing biases. According to the IPRI study, 62.5% of respondents agreed that social media has made Pakistan’s political sphere more polarised.

The algorithms powering these platforms prioritise emotionally charged content, often at the expense of factual accuracy. As political scientist Emilia Palonen has argued, polarisation thrives on the creation of binary identities —”us versus them” —which social media is uniquely positioned to cultivate.

The study’s quantitative analysis, using Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient, reveals platform-specific dynamics. X showed a statistically significant positive correlation with political polarisation, suggesting that users who trust its political content are more likely to perceive heightened division. TikTok, interestingly, showed a statistically significant negative correlation – indicating that users who trust its political content are less likely to view it as a source of polarisation. Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube and Instagram showed weak or no correlation, underscoring the differentiated impact of each platform.

These findings challenge simplistic narratives about social media’s role in politics. It is not merely the presence of political content but its structure, delivery and emotional tenor that shape public perception. The study also highlights the role of political actors in weaponising social media. Parties now routinely hire PR firms, influencers and digital activists to push partisan narratives, often blurring the line between engagement and propaganda. This has led to a spillover effect, where ordinary users become unwitting participants in a digital war of attrition.

The consequences are far-reaching. Hate speech, misinformation and personal attacks are not just tolerated —they are rewarded by algorithms that prioritise virality over veracity.

The IPRI study found strong correlations between political polarisation and exposure to extremist content, with respondents acknowledging that such content influences both their online and offline relationships.

What makes this moment particularly dangerous is the erosion of trust —not just between political parties, but between citizens and institutions. The study notes that national institutions have increasingly become targets of online disinformation campaigns, often without credible evidence. Political actors use social media to mobilise support and discredit opponents; but in doing so, they also undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions. This erosion of trust is not incidental —it is a deliberate attempt of polarising digital rhetoric.

The study also identifies key drivers of polarisation: algorithmic amplification; political incidents; and, lack of media literacy. Algorithms create echo chambers by showing users content that aligns with their existing beliefs, reinforcing confirmation bias and limiting exposure to diverse viewpoints. Political events —such as protests, arrests and electoral disputes – are often distorted online, fuelling outrage and deepening divisions. Meanwhile, low levels of media literacy make users more susceptible to misinformation, reducing their ability to critically evaluate content.

To address these challenges, the study offers a set of thoughtful recommendations. These include integrating digital literacy into educational curricula; regulating algorithmic amplification; and, promoting inclusive discourse. It also calls for the development of indigenous social media platforms to reduce dependence on foreign tech giants whose moderation policies may not align with Pakistan’s socio-political realities.

These reforms are not just technical —they are political. They require a commitment to democratic norms, institutional transparency and civic education. The future of political engagement in Pakistan will depend on how these digital spaces are managed. Censorship and shutdowns, as the study rightly notes, are counterproductive. What is needed is a multi-stakeholder approach involving policymakers, tech companies, educators and civil society.

The current level of polarisation has made it increasingly difficult to foster social cohesion. Political engagement has become synonymous with tribal loyalty, and dissent is often treated as betrayal. Yet, the IPRI study also reveals that many users are open to opposing views and willing to verify information before sharing it. This suggests that the problem is not insurmountable —it is structural.

In essence, social media is neither inherently good nor bad —it is a reflection of the society that uses it. In Pakistan, where political identities are deeply entrenched and institutional trust is fragile, the unchecked growth of polarising content poses a serious threat to democratic cohesion.

The IPRI study provides a timely and rigorous framework for understanding this phenomenon and offers a roadmap for mitigating its impact. It is now up to the country’s leadership – political, institutional and civic —to act on these insights and steer the digital discourse toward a more informed and united future.