IT always feels like day before yesterday in Pakistan's politics. While some politicians tenaciously stick to power others determinedly try to dislodge them.

The imprisonment or exile suffered by parliamentarians during Pervez Musharraf's nine years has not changed the essentials of the country's politics. But then Ziaul Haq's longer and more tortuous term hadn't either. His faction of the Muslim League has since become a part of Pakistan's political scene. So will, and soon, Musharraf's. The legacies of all four military rulers linger and influence the course of politics.

Pakistan's weak, quarrelsome and corrupt political system and its leaders have been inviting military intervention. Judged by these criteria the system, if at all, is more vulnerable today than in 1999. It is because of a precarious national and regional environment, and not the strength of institutions, that a fumbling democracy is surviving. But for how long? Trading invectives and insults, allies in government, and their opponents no less, may soon be regretting the squandering of yet another opportunity to strengthen institutions.

Two political parties that command some following in every part of the federation and have a stronghold at least in one major province is a prerequisite for the parliamentary system to dig roots in Pakistan. The PPP and the Muslim League are the only two parties that come close to answering that description. Pir Pagara's ongoing efforts to persuade the League's many factions to merge into one party will be frustrated only by the fight over loaves and fishes. Their principles, or lack of them, and culpabilities are common.

The PPP has fewer factions but more disgruntled individuals in its ranks because of the personality cult and absolute authority of the chief of the party which the councils or individuals, however venerable, dare not question. The PPP would gain a great deal in stature if it were to woo back those among its founders who are still active in public life — men like Dr Mubashar Hasan, Mumtaz Bhutto, Meraj Mohammad Khan and Hafeez Pirzada.

Notwithstanding their internal dissensions or inadequate representation in one or the other region, the PPP and Muslim League can constitute the hard core of every government or opposition at the centre and in the provinces. The regional (ANP, MQM, JWP) and religious (JUI and JI) parties will have the choice to support or oppose the government at the centre and, one day, might end up forming a government of their own in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.

Nationally representative and organised parties impart stability to the parliamentary system but the concept of a fixed term for parliament, hence for the government, is alien to it. The prime minister can advise the president to dissolve the National Assembly whenever his administration is faltering and he feels his party would fare better at the polls rather than wait for parliament to run its full course. It is up to Mr Gilani to decide whether to dissolve the Assembly or limp along for two more years but any suggestion for dissolution must not be viewed as a conspiracy. It is part of parliamentary life.

Many detached observers, this writer for one, have been expressing the view that polls held now rather than two or three years hence would be good for the parliamentary system and the country. Discontent is widespread. Partners in coalitions, especially in Punjab, are in fact adversaries. In Sindh they jostle along but follow their own interests. In the federation it is a joyride for all. Ministries have been created so that ministers can head them. An impoverished country can make do with one-fifth their present number.

It would be good for the ruling party to lose at the polls now rather than suffer a debacle in 2012. For not holding elections frequently, or even when due, Pakistan has paid a heavy price in terms of unity and economic growth. We forget that the first general election based on adult franchise was held 24 years after independence. By then it was too late to keep the country together. A whole generation grew up under indirectly elected unrepresentative governments or military regimes.

The disenfranchised youth of East Pakistan fought their way out of the federation. The demoralised western wing was alternately passed to faltering civilian governments and longer-lasting, doctrinaire military regimes. The revived conventional democracy remains unstable and lacks the vigour to last a full five years because its power centre lies not in parliament but in the presidency.

To establish its primacy, parliament must have its popular mandate renewed more frequently than after intervals of five years. Detracting further from its supremacy is the representation of women and minorities through assemblies rather than direct election. The senators are all chosen by the assemblies and do not truly represent either their wider constituencies or the neglected interests of vast but sparsely populated regions.

Parliament, often referred to as supreme or sovereign, in reality is subservient to executive authority and the bosses of political parties. So it will remain unless the constitution and conventions both enjoin that elections to the National Assembly should be held every three years; senators should be directly elected by the people as should representatives of women and minorities; and, lastly the head of the state should have no political affiliation much less head the majority party. Pakistan needs a president in the mould of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

There remains a dilemma that only the people of Pakistan themselves can resolve. Everybody wants parliament to be supreme but always looks up to a person of charisma to lead and deliver. It is the same story from Jinnah to Zardari with Ayub Khan, Z.A. Bhutto, Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf falling in between. As for institutions, one wonders if the rural majority is even aware that a Senate exists and what it does. kunwaridris@hotmail.com