Fast on the heels of the “minus-one” euphoria, the Pakistan People’s Party is now trying to peddle an absurd “No Zardari – no democracy” train of thought as a damage-control exercise in an effort to project Zardari as, of all things, an indispensable champion of democracy. Mercifully, this fundamentally flawed line of reasoning has found roots only among the pseudo-intellectuals (a bane upon this nation, if ever there was one!) and limited sections of the media. According to this line of thought, since this is a “democratic” setup, any change will be for the worse. Apart from manacling the nation to a painful status quo without any possibility of progress through positive change, implicit in this defeatist logic is a pessimistic resignation to the highly questionable assessment that this is the best that our nation of 180 million can do.

This is simply not so. Change does not have to mean an abandonment of democracy. It is precisely for the sake of democracy’s survival that we must have change. Since we have clearly hit rock bottom, how can any change not be a marked improvement over the present? We have not yet arrived at the stage of a mature democracy and our process of hit-and-miss experimentation must continue. Change is an integral part of this process, without which we are bound to be mired hopelessly in the status quo. France’s trial-and-error experiments with various forms of republics lasted nearly two hundred years before Charles de Gaulle established the Fifth Republic, rescuing France from the instability of the Fourth Republic. Armchair pundits incessantly lament that things have never been this bad, yet they balk at the prospect of change. This can only lead to disaster.

We all want democracy. But sometimes we are faced with conditions that require extraordinary measures. Mustafa Kemal Attaturk was a military dictator, but he saved Turkey from turmoil and set it on the right path to progress, for which he is still idolised. Under the current dispensation, people have been reduced to committing suicides out of desperation and selling, even killing, their own children to make ends meet. Corruption, lawlessness, maladministration, astounding escalation of prices of basic commodities, collapse of municipal services and acute shortages of water, power, gas, flour and sugar have made life unliveable for them. Does anyone really think they care that there is “democracy” in the country? They are clamouring for relief and do not care whether it comes from an elected or unelected leader. That is what matters most, and that is what the pseudo-intellectuals fail to grasp.

Instead of pontificating in drawing rooms, these self-appointed gurus should try going out and telling the hari and labourer that he must continue to suffer in silence under present conditions for the sake of democracy and see what happens. People have seen this form of democracy before and it has succeeded only in compounding their misery and pain. They feel no loyalty to this failed system or the corrupt, incompetent and unworthy people who run it. Ironically, this particular incarnation of democracy was meant to be a “revenge” for the murder of Benazir Bhutto. But while all memories of her have long faded from the minds of those who revel in the corridors of power in her name, this so-called “democracy” that has been unleashed has wreaked havoc on the nation.

Can anyone honestly claim that this brand of democracy is working? Brazenly breaking oaths and commitments is democracy? Manipulating vital state institutions on a personal agenda is democracy? Elected leaders hiding behind iron gates and concrete walls while innocent citizens get blown up by bombs every day is democracy? Banning television channels or certain programmes is democracy? How does it reflect upon this democracy, indeed upon this nation, when those who were under trial, or had already been convicted, on charges of corruption, find their way to the highest posts of government under the shelter of an immoral and unconstitutional NRO? What does it say about this democracy when elected leaders, including incumbent governors, chief ministers, ministers and advisors, not to mention the president himself, once again find themselves defendants in criminal and corruption cases upon losing the shelter of the NRO?

Article 248 of the Constitution, which gives the president immunity from prosecution, is vague as to whether the immunity also extends to crimes committed before assumption of office. This matter is likely to come before the courts for interpretation very soon. In any case, there still remains the issue of whether Zardari, without the shield of the NRO, was, in retrospect, even eligible to be a candidate for the office of president. This charade only massages the egos of demagogues, but most certainly it is not democracy by any standards. So we need to push on with the experiment with democracy. But how can we do this if our opinion-makers tell us that we should avoid change? Does it suffice to blindly cling on to a bankrupt “democracy” even if it destroys the country?

There is much that is rotten in the state of Pakistan and it needs to be set right. The nation stands at the threshold of disaster. The civil war being waged in the north, to which there appears to be neither an end in sight nor an exit strategy, offers no easy solutions and promises to cause unimaginable harm to the country. People are desperate and angry. Never before have the workers and supporters of a ruling party demonstrated such venomous outrage against their own government as they do now. As a consequence, ministers and advisors are often forced to scramble for shelter from the people’s wrath, and stay under heavy guard in open kutcheries and public gatherings, even in a place like Naodero, the People’s Party’s epicentre.

According to a recent public-opinion poll carried out by Al-Jazeera, roughly half the People’s Party supporters polled disapproved of their party co-chairman’s performance in the presidential office. This is an unprecedented development. The writ of law and government is non-existent. Vital institutions that are the lifeline of the state lie in ruins. National sovereignty stands tragically compromised to satisfy one man’s lust for fame and fortune. Having lost public support and, therefore, all traces of legitimacy, he can only lean for survival on foreign powers, which have happily stepped in to assume the role of new colonialists. No better can be expected from the present dispensation. This is the best they can do, while there seems to be no limit to the worse they can do. If the country, and indeed democracy, is to survive and be resuscitated, they must go.

Change is unavoidable under the present circumstances, but it does not have to mean subversion of democracy. Nobody is inviting the generals to intervene, yet. Will Zardari see the writing on the wall and make an exit with whatever modicum of dignity he might be able to muster? Knowing him, that would be asking for too much. Alternatively, the Constitution clearly lays down the mechanism for lawful democratic change. If even this possibility is not explored then, sooner rather than later, voices will be raised for change by extra-constitutional means, since that will be the only remaining option. Who will stand in the face of the winds that will then blow?

It is not change but the consequences arising from mindlessly clinging on to a stagnant status quo that we need to fear. Change may derail the gravy train for some, but can only positively impact the future of democracy and stability in Pakistan.

The writer is vice-chairman of Sindh National Front and a former MPA from Ratodero. He has degrees from the University of Buckingham and Cambridge University. Email: abbhuto@yahoo.com