Octopus clings to fisherman’s face

By Engr. Saqlain Abid Political Commentator and NFPA-Certified Electrical Engineer   Elections are the vital organ of a living democracy. If they are conducted according to the people’s choice, without interference, on equal grounds, and with the consensus of all democratic participants, then the state not only remains in good health but also flourishes with the hope and commitment promised before the elections.   For the first time in the history of Pakistan, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) elections are not being held on a single polling day. Instead, the electoral process has been divided into three different phases—27 July, 8 August, and 20 August 2026. This unusual arrangement raises several important questions. Why is the state preparing this electoral model? What are the conditions on the ground that necessitated such a strategy? More importantly, how could this experiment influence Pakistan’s national elections next year?   The political environment surrounding these elections has already become highly contested. The major political force JAAC has been banned by the government, and several of its leaders have been detained. The party has consequently boycotted the elections. PTI, another major opposition force, has also chosen to boycott the electoral process. According to its leadership, the party has been forced to contest only through independent candidates rather than under its official party platform. PTI argues that the government has failed to provide the safety, guarantees, and political environment necessary for free and fair elections. Under such circumstances, the party believes participation would merely legitimize a process it does not trust.   On the other hand, the ruling coalition, led by PML-N and PPP, has entered the campaign with promises of development projects, including new motorways and business initiatives aimed at attracting voters. While development remains an important component of any election campaign, questions regarding electoral credibility continue to overshadow these promises.   In principle, elections should be transparent, efficient, and completed within the shortest possible time. If technological solutions such as secure online systems become feasible in the future, they may further reduce the chances of manipulation. However, extending the polling process over three different days also creates a debate. While supporters argue that it makes election management easier, critics believe that a prolonged process increases opportunities for allegations of interference and weakens public confidence.   The government should have taken all political parties on board before announcing such an unprecedented electoral model. A genuinely inclusive process requires the participation of every major democratic stakeholder. JAAC, which commands significant public support in parts of Azad Kashmir, should have been engaged through political dialogue rather than exclusion. The credibility of elections depends not only on voting day but also on the perception that every political voice has been given an equal opportunity to participate.   Pakistan has previously criticized India for conducting elections in Jammu and Kashmir while sections of the local political leadership remained outside the process. At the time, Islamabad argued that elections held without broad political participation reflected only a procedural exercise rather than the genuine will of the people. The obvious question now is what circumstances have led Pakistan toward a model that some critics argue resembles the same approach.   Some political analysts believe that the AJK elections may serve as a pilot project to test a phased electoral model before its possible application across Pakistan during future general elections. Whether this perception is accurate or not, the debate itself demonstrates the level of public skepticism surrounding the process.   Another factor attracting attention is the role of the Chief Election Commissioner, whose tenure continues to face criticism following the February 2024 general elections. Allegations raised by former Rawalpindi Commissioner Liaquat Ali Chattha regarding manipulation of election results remain part of Pakistan’s political discourse, despite subsequent developments in the case. These controversies have inevitably shaped public perceptions regarding electoral transparency.   If voter turnout remains significantly low because of political boycotts and public distrust, the legitimacy of the exercise may come under further scrutiny. It is therefore the moral responsibility of the government and the Election Commission to create an environment where every democratic force feels secure enough to participate and where no stakeholder can reasonably question the fairness of the process.   The electoral process ultimately determines the political shelf life of a state. When governments emerge through elections widely accepted by the public, trust between the people and the state grows stronger. When that trust weakens, political polarization deepens, frustration increases, and hostile external actors find greater opportunities to exploit internal divisions. With Balochistan already facing serious security challenges and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa confronting persistent instability, any controversy surrounding the AJK electoral process may further strengthen perceptions that democratic space is shrinking rather than expanding.   Ultimately, the success of these elections will not be measured solely by administrative efficiency but by whether the people of Azad Kashmir believe that their voices were freely heard and genuinely counted. A credible electoral process strengthens democracy; a disputed one risks weakening the very foundations upon which democratic legitimacy depends.

By Syeda Samar Zahra Zaidi When you ask an AI chatbot a question it does not know the answer to, an odd thing can happen: instead of hesitating or saying, “I am not sure!” it confidently delivers a tidy, well-structured, completely fabricated response—often with fake citations, fictional figures, and an authoritative tone. This phenomenon is known as the ‘hallucination trap ’, and it may be the most significant barrier between trust and artificial intelligence. I was introduced to the term “AI hallucination” for the first time in the workshop under the project titled “Digital Trust and Free Expression in the AI Era” at Department of Media and Development Communication, University of the Punjab, supported by the U.S. Mission to Pakistan in partnership with the Pakistan-U.S. Alumni Network (PUAN). I learned that a “hallucination” occurs when a language model produces information that sounds convincing but is factually incorrect or completely made up. Examples include inventing a legal case that never existed, citing a research paper that doesn’t exist or boldly misrepresenting a historical date. What is disturbing is not merely that AI can be wrong-humans make mistake too- but rather the way it presents that incorrect information with clearly, confidence and without a trace of doubt. Large language models are essentially highly complex pattern predictors trained to produce the most likely next word in a sequence. As a result, when a model has encountered a topic thousands of times in its training data, the predictors are typically accurate. However, when it comes across a gap, an unidentified fact or a question at the outer edge of its knowledge, it doesn’t shift into a hesitant mode. Instead, it continues doing exactly what it was trained to do: generate a logical, fluent piece of writing, producing a response that is structurally sound and grammatically correct but based on nothing. In human communication, confidence is generally perceived as a sign of strength which is important. We naturally prefer to trust a calm, reliable voice over a hesitant one. AI systems unintentionally exploit the tendency because their language remains confident whether they are right or wrong. The risks increase with the use of AI, as students may unintentionally include false information into their work and journalists have published articles citing artificially created sources and quotes, negatively affecting the credibility of their publications. Such inaccuracies influence what millions of people see, believe or share, thereby amplifying fabricated content. The reason AI does not simply say “I don’t know” is partly due to the way these systems are trained. Many models are designed to provide helpful, comprehensive-sounding answers and are rarely rewarded for expressing doubt during training. This means that a model that frequently acknowledges uncertainty may be judged as less helpful than one that consistently provides an answer, even when that confidence is occasionally misplaced. Such incorrectly aligned incentives arise when the training process gradually teaches the model that sounding confident is more valuable than being accuracy. Retrieval-augmented generation, which relies on responses in actual, verifiable records rather than internal memory alone, improved training techniques that explicitly account for uncertainty; and systems built to simply cite sources. So, users can independently verify claims are just a few of the ways developers are using to addresses this problem. While none of these solutions fully eliminate hallucination yet, taken together they represent a major shift from blind confidence toward earned trust. The most dangerous outcome is not an AI that makes mistakes but a culture of users who stop questioning because the system always sounds so sure of itself.   Therefore, until AI becomes more reliably aware of it own limitation, part of the responsibility falls on the people who use it: treating AI-generated output as a starting point rather than an endpoint, cross checking important facts against credible sources. In the end, the hallucination trap serves as a reminder that illusion is not the same as truth. As AI becomes increasingly common in education, digital media and everyday life, understanding why it occasionally lies with confidence is not only a technical curiosity but also a fundamental aspect of digital literacy. We must strengthen our ability to verify the information provided by AI as they become more persuasive. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Mission to Pakistan or USEFP. The writer, Syeda Samar Zahra Zaidi, is a student of Media and Development Communication at  University of the Punjab, Lahore and can be reached at samarzahra456@gmail.com.