Unless those types of politicians systemically behave badly only in the term that their party is in power – which would be strange – bad politician behaviour cannot explain incumbency disadvantage.

Pakistanis would do well to understand the effects of incumbency disadvantage. They complain – rightly – about badly behaving politicians, but politicians need stability to behave. The drawing room analysts are thus not free of blame in the saga of Pakistan’s corrupt politicians and its non-delivering democracy. By encouraging instability, they are a player.

The cycle of badly performing politicians is reinforced by weak democratic regimes.

Let’s be clear. These types of Pakistani analysts have come a long way. They were not voters in previous elections. Yet they now believe democracy is the best system for Pakistan.

It took Musharraf’s disastrous last year to convince them that no good has come of a military government in Pakistan; the belief has sustained after Musharraf, even if some of the enthusiasm for democracy has waned.

In June, 2016 after the usual disappointments with Pakistan’s civilian governments had set in, 84% of respondents said in a Gallup poll that they preferred democracy to dictatorship.

But with the dogged yearlong pursuit of Sharif over the Panama Papers, and his lackadaisical response, the urban, educated Pakistanis have had enough.

The frenzy had whipped up to such an extent that they believed that the only fair outcome would be for Sharif to be booted out; anything less than that would be holding up a corrupt regime, and a step back for Pakistan.

For these Pakistanis, the signs all pointing in one direction – to corruption – was all the proof needed to disqualify Sharif.

Related: Pakistan’s corruption conundrum

The justices felt they had to deliver to these expectations; in the process they delivered a verdict whose basis is so ambiguous that it would disqualify the entire political class of Pakistan if applied thoroughly.

And because the basis of this verdict can, realistically, only be selectively applied, it is vulnerable to the charge of subjectivity and scapegoating.

You can believe that Sharif is guilty of corruption, and that he lost the right to be prime minister. No matter. The right path would have been to let the accountability court disqualify Sharif on proven corruption in the next few months, or allow the voters the opportunity to boot him out next year.

Yet the home analysts cheered the Supreme Court’s verdict; they do not have patience for due process, never having seen it come to fruition.

Their impatience is the legacy of the 1990s, and its return tells of a grim future for Pakistan.

Because now the cycle can begin again – a weakened incumbent party, able to spin a tale of victimisation, has the excuse to not deliver for its constituents.

We came close to a better cycle for Pakistan’s democracy this time.