WHEN you write a weekly column for as long as I have been doing, you tend to forget what your last piece was about, let alone what you wrote a year ago.

So it's embarrassing to be accused of saying something months ago and not having a clue of what your reader is talking about. At a small dinner party recently, the talk inevitably turned to politics and the host (let us call him Hamid), said he recalled reading a column in which I had advocated the imposition of martial law. Now I have voiced my opinion on many things over the years and taken a lot of positions, but in one thing at least I have been consistent, and that is my uncompromising opposition to military rule.

When I was unsociable enough to contradict Hamid, he brought out his laptop, saying that he had been so revolted by a couple of my pieces he had read abroad on the Internet edition of this newspaper that he had saved them on his hard disc. For somebody who is accustomed to the idea of his column being used to wrap pan the day after it is published, I was mildly flattered that a reader not only remembered what I had written, but had also saved my pieces. Nevertheless, it was with some trepidation that I waited for my offending words from the past to appear on the screen.

I normally don't quote from my own columns (mainly because I have usually forgotten what I wrote the previous week!), but will make an exception to discuss the point Hamid made. Specifically, he showed me a piece called "Full circle" which appeared on July 25, 1998, in this space. Remember this was when this government had recently tested nuclear devices, frozen foreign currency accounts, and the world had imposed sanctions on us:

"... A decade and four general elections later, we see the same crooks and charlatans packing the assemblies as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif take turns at milking the nation and driving it closer to complete moral and financial bankruptcy. Clearly, something is seriously wrong with the system; but since it works well for both the PPP and the PML, neither has any incentive to reform it... Already, we are at the brink of financial and institutional meltdown, and since both major parties are part of the problem, there is no way they can also be part of the solution..."

Then comes the paragraph that Hamid has misinterpreted: "Given the royal mess politicians have made and the situation the country finds itself in today, I doubt if a soul would venture out into the streets to protest against the sacking of this government and the temporary suspension of political activity... None of this is easy for me to say as I have supported democracy from the day I started thinking seriously about politics. In this and other columns elsewhere, I have consistently opposed extra-constitutional intervention and reposed my faith in the people... But over the years as I have witnessed our politicians squander opportunity after opportunity to establish the writ of civil society, I have despaired of their ability to learn from their mistakes..."

I have then gone on to argue that if an interregnum did take place, among the politicians available to us, Leghari was arguably the best option to head an interim arrangement. I can be criticized for condemning our politicians, but not for proposing martial law. Another article Hamid took issue with was the one that appeared the following week ("A rootless democracy"; 1/8/98). Here I quoted Ayub Khan's infamous comment that parliamentary democracy was not in keeping with "the genius of the people of Pakistan." Hamid took umbrage at the following words:

But many years, many elections and many governments later, one has to concede that the old soldier knew what he was talking about. Parliamentary democracy, above all forms of government, requires a level of tolerance and respect for other points of view that simply does not exist here...

"... given my long and passionate advocacy of democracy, it is not easy for me to express such strong reservations about the possibilities of a democratic order putting down roots in our infertile soil. I also foresee that my words here may well return to haunt me one day if we should slide into authoritarian rule..."

Well, the day of reckoning has arrived sooner than I had expected, thanks to Hamid. But in my defence, I can reproduce the conclusion of this piece: "My readers have asked me, from time to time, to suggest a way out, but I must confess that I have only questions and doubts, and very little hope."

But despite my reservations, disappointments and doubts about the system, let nobody doubt that at the end of the day, I remain as convinced as ever that the worst kind of democracy is preferable to the best kind of martial law. The fact that I can express my views as freely as I do is the direct outcome of the struggle many Pakistanis have waged to restore democracy in Pakistan, and under no circumstances would I support authoritarian rule. If I have seemed to waver, it is because I feel very strongly about this country and am therefore less willing than most to forgive our politicians for all the opportunities they have squandered.

I wrote then, and reiterate now, that political systems are a means to a better society and not an end in themselves. No system is sacrosanct, and if one is not working, it should be changed. Clearly, politicians and citizens need to think long and hard and decide if they are happy with the way things are now, and if they aren't, what should we replace parliamentary democracy with? There are other forms of democracy operating around the world, and it may be self-defeating to cling blindly to just one because we inherited it from the British. But whatever form of government we adopt, we need to be clear that we will not permit any adventurer to seize control of our destiny again.