Over a year after the elections held last year, the National Assembly remains deadlocked, and whenever a session is called, the parliament resounds with the slogans of "Go, Musharraf, go!"

But despite the boycott of parliamentary proceedings by the opposition, the business of the state as well as the lives of ordinary people go on without any major inconvenience, excepting the many hurdles built into the system and placed there by officialdom. So what does this tell us? Surely it reveals the immaturity of both the ruling party and the opposition. But above all, it demonstrates yet again the irrelevance of the political class.

Indeed, I have met many people who speculate glibly about the imminent dissolution of the assembly. But what would this solve? Musharraf has a pliant majority cobbled together through means that are not suitable for sensitive people to learn about. He has a prime minister who has not disagreed with him even once. And if the opposition wants to shout "Go, Musharraf, go!", why should he allow these childish protests to goad him into precipitate action? After all, he has already dissolved one assembly, and that's generally the limit per general, although Zia threw out two, and probably regretted dumping poor Junejo.

Currently, Musharraf has the best of all possible worlds: he calls the shots on the issues that really matter, and has a fall-guy for everything that goes wrong. And best of all, the opposition is wasting every opportunity to put him and his system under the microscope through questions raised on the floor of the assembly.

Recently, the opposition resigned membership from all parliamentary committees. Big deal. The committees have hardly ever functioned in the matter they were intended. The fact that in over a year, the opposition parties have not managed to name a parliamentary leader shows how divided and ineffective they are.

Given the shaky nature of the ruling coalition, and the strength of the opposition parties, an eloquent (as opposed to merely noisy) leader of the opposition could have played havoc with the quisling faction of the Muslim League. Instead, the anti-government group has frittered away more than a year without achieving any positive result.

To be sure, their anti-LFO stance cannot be faulted by purists: the point that Musharraf is not qualified to be president as long as he is the serving army chief is something no democrat can argue against. However, in the realm of practical politics, shades of grey often tarnish the purity of idealism.

Musharraf has made his position very clear: he will simply not budge on the issue of the uniform he wears, and as long as the army supports him on this, nothing short of a major street movement will force him to change his mind. And currently, there is no sign that a public agitation would draw many people into the streets.

The religious parties are the only ones that could confront the state with their foot-soldiers, but given the current mood, they know they would be isolated. One major problem the opposition faces is that it is deeply divided. Composed of a handful of Nawaz Sharif loyalists, the PPP and the coalition of religious parties gathered under the umbrella of the MMA, these disparate elements were barely on speaking terms not long very ago. Only the PPP and the PML-N have anything in common, being basically middle-of-the-road, secular parties. But even together, their parliamentary strength does not permit them to make an impact without the MMA.

Although both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have cut deals with the mullas when it has been politically expedient, given the current balance of power, it would be difficult to form a solid alliance without accepting the MMA's obscurantist agenda. Soon after the elections, the PPP was talking to Musharraf about a possible deal, but these overtures collapsed as Benazir Bhutto insisted that her return to the country be part of the agreement.

So where do we go from here? Are we in for four more years of a deadlocked parliament? Four more years of "Go, Musharraf, go!"? Short of a totally unforeseen event, it seems that nothing will budge the government on its stance over the Legal Framework Order promulgated by Musharraf that gives him sweeping powers incompatible with a parliamentary democracy. But politics is about creating and using space where none was earlier available.

Let us be clear that democracy is not an end in itself; it is the means to an end, the end being a peaceful, prosperous society where the rule of law prevails and applies to every citizen. Elected representatives need to ask themselves whether their boycott serves their constituents. If they accept the current limitations and work within the system, they can be far more effective than they are now.

And if things seem to function as well or as badly as they did without a parliament in place, we should remember that sooner or later, we need to have a genuinely democratic system in place. Many people, fed up with the antics of the politicians, are convinced that Pakistan is not ready for democracy. To prove their point, they say that the voters are illiterate and keep electing Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif. They forget that the essence of democracy is a free and unfettered choice, and then to have the tolerance to accept the popular will. More importantly, they forget that it is the military that has prevented the development of democracy by constantly destabilizing elected leaders and parties.

While the military mind is trained to maintain the status quo by giving and following orders, it is ill-equipped to cope with fluid situations that need a consensus among differing elements. Take the on-again, off-again peace talks with India as an example. Here, it is clearly in the national interest of Pakistan to come to some sort of settlement with our neighbour that could reduce tension as well as defence spending.

Accordingly, both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto (in her first stint) attempted to normalize relations. Both were thrown out by the army before their efforts could bear fruit. But the army has its own institutional interests that have now diverged considerably from the national interests, so it is hard to see how Musharraf could or would play the role of a peace-maker. So those questioning the need for democracy need to recognize the limits of dictatorship.