THE week that President Musharraf has spent in Europe has not been a good week for the cause of democracy in Pakistan. His set-piece speeches were constructed around a very small number of key ideas and foremost amongst them was his belief that the people of Pakistan were not ready as yet for democracy as globally understood.

He walked on thin ice when he argued implicitly that his plan for a transition to a democratic order best suited to the current evolutionary status of Pakistan`s political culture could only be implemented after the removal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and more than 50 other judges of the higher courts.

Outside the ambit of his unchanging talking points were some disturbing moments such as the trivialisation and trashing by the president — one of the longest serving chiefs of army staff — of a large number of former military officers who had called for a change in status quo and the most unfortunate skirmish with the respected London correspondent of this newspaper.

Quite apart from the question of whether President Musharraf`s declared aim of repairing Pakistan`s image in the West was at all fulfilled by his words and posture, there is little doubt that the cumulative effect in Pakistan was one of despondency.

Far too many people have concluded that there is hardly any prospect of a free, fair and transparent election and that, regardless of their aspirations, Musharraf would simply implement his own plan of creating a troika comprising a powerful president, an unassertive and docile prime minister and the chief of army staff who incidentally has shown no inclination of being sucked into the power game. This perception has further dampened the already insipid election campaign.

It is campaign that Benazir Bhutto had tried to lift to a level where it would become an instrument of peaceful but substantive change. An indefatigable campaigner, she was widening the parameters of political discourse by systematically bringing up issues that Pakistan needed to address. Naturally, her first priority was the restoration of democracy.

But she was straining hard to go beyond mere constitutionalism by promising to use democracy to develop a different approach to terrorism, problems of provincial autonomy and a more equitable economic order. She gave her life while trying to connect with the masses, a tactic that would have made it difficult to get away with a rigged election. The present apathy is born out of a feeling that the democratisation in hand is more form than substance.

In the wake of the collapse of communist dictatorships and non-communist authoritarian regimes in various parts of the world, democracy reasserted itself as by far the

most satisfactory form of government; it carries the lowest risks and is most conducive to social and economic development. A corollary to this reading of history is that democracy should be proactively promoted. Francis Fukuyama would probably concede that his end-of-history thesis was premature but he still argues that the world needs a new strategy for bolstering the legitimacy of democracy promotion and the defence of human rights.

He recommends that `governments must come together and draft a code of conduct for democratic interventions` in a manner analogous to humanitarian interventions to protect threatened populations.

Surveys have shown that 71 per cent of West Europeans support democracy promotion, though the number in the United States is much lower. President Musharraf`s jibe that the West was unduly obsessed with democracy and human rights was directed at an audience that could not possibly ignore the pervasive belief that European governments have to weave observance of democratic norms as a criterion in their external relations.

Even Condoleezza Rice had to say that democracy was a good thing to be obsessed with. Pakistan`s own history bears testimony to the fact that authoritarian rule did not provide either sustainable economic development or security.

India has achieved both better than Pakistan under a democratic system which was chaotic when compared to the stable western democracies. It was able to do so because it trusted its people and allowed them to grow into a democracy systematically and continuously.

When John Morley became secretary of state for India in December 1905, he was faced with Curzon`s dictum that not a single Indian was fit to join his executive council.

Morley took a less pessimistic view and thought India could evolve towards representative institutions. The people of Pakistan went through the same arduous journey till 1947 under a leader who understood constitutionalism better than anyone else and who created a new nation with the power of the ballot.

It is unfair to tell them and the rest of the world today that they never made that journey.

There is despair in the country because of the pervasive apprehension that once again the people will be short-changed during the impending electoral exercise. It is not that the people are not ripe for democracy; it is the civil and military oligarchy that deliberately refuses to accept this reality. We do not have to invent the wheel again and spend another five decades rehearsing the Minto-Morley gradualism, the subterfuges of the Simon Commission, the Government of India Act of 1935 and worse still the great agitations that rocked the subcontinent between 1942 and 1947.

President Musharraf has been an absolute ruler longer than any American president can govern while surrounded by all the checks and balances of the Constitution under which he takes his oath of office.

He can now hold deep consultations with all the political parties after a fair, free and transparent election to work out the modalities which would take the country back to the nearest possible approximation of the 1973 Constitution.

He can either continue within those restored parameters or face more and more strident demands for him to step down altogether. The choice he makes may well determine Pakistan`s destiny. When all is said and told democracy is a worthwhile obsession.