On the sixteenth anniversary of the coup masterminded by Pervez Musharraf against Nawaz Sharif’s government on October 12, 1999, Senators from across the aisle came together to jointly condemn the nine year dictatorship of Musharraf and argued for the longevity of democracy. In a discussion to ostensibly discuss the “existing political situation in the country”, the lawmakers, led by Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani, were unequivocal in calling for institutions to stay within their constitutional domain and respect democratic institutions and the rule of law as it was not the job of the agencies or military to run the country. The Senators took note of various agendas being propagated that sought to create an environment that undermines the prevailing political structure and sow doubts about the viability of a democratic system ‘in Pakistan’s context’. In a significant move, a PML-N Senator recognised how historically dictators have benefited from opportunistic politicians giving them support, and called for a vow from all parliamentarians that they would never support a dictator under any circumstances in the future while also being critical of his own party’s cabinet members who benefited during Musharraf’s reign by aligning themselves with him. Nevertheless, the Senators were careful not to ruffle too many feathers and qualified their condemnation with praise for the current military leadership and the job they were doing. While the Senators’ strong words are certainly encouraging, a cursory glance at the political and media discourse across the country would reveal many worrying realities. It should be considered unfathomable that barely half a decade after seeing the back of a much reviled dictator, the country’s political consensus would be dangerously close to calling for another military coup, but such is the fickle public memory of Pakistani citizens and media. The lesson of October 1999 seems to be that we have learnt no lesson at all. While the achievements of General Raheel Sharif in combating terrorism are certainly praiseworthy, it is baffling to imagine that since he is performing his duties well, he should be elevated to the status of head of state. There is a concentrated campaign where short-sighted civilians clamour for intervention by the army chief in matters where the army has no business being involved. Every time a military dictator has swooped in to take all the power for himself and his institution, he has been welcomed with trumpets blowing and has been hailed as the answer to Pakistan’s problems. And yet every time, the country the dictator leaves behind after roughly ten years of power has been much worse off than when he took the reins. His exit is then marked with equal vociferousness and his memory spat upon. This cycle keeps repeating itself ad nauseam. Why do military dictatorships keep on imposing themselves with such regularity in our political history and, more importantly, why does the public forget the pitfalls of unquestionably following the previous strongman? The basic cause seems to be the failure of civilian governments to satisfy a diverse and fractured populace due to incompetence, in-fighting or corruption; so busy have political parties in power been in the past to see the back of their opposition that they have repeatedly dropped the ball on actual governance and have let the system necessary for their survival be put in jeopardy. The lifeblood of dictators has been turncoats and opportunists in the political class and complicit judicial institutions who prefer to ensure their personal interests over the health of democracy and the constitution. The final factor working in favour of military dictatorships is the manufactured public consciousness that holds that the only way to govern Pakistan is with a tough, uncompromising hand, which only a strong institution like the military possesses. Western powers, the so-called champions of democracy, are equally complicit as they have unfailingly supported each dictatorship for reasons largely of expediency. The predilection of politicians for corruption is true but they are not alone in this game. While they are turned into popular punching bags and scapegoats, the military benefits from being turned into a holy cow that resists any attempts at accountability as its integrity is deemed unquestionable. The media has failed to use the freedom afforded to it responsibly and has led the public astray for its vested interests. People should look around: the protests and activism taking place at the moment where people are free to voice their concerns and campaign for a better future can only happen in a democracy. It is true that the system is flawed at present but only by persevering with it can we hope to see a mature and responsive democratic governance eventually, which will be for the benefit of all. *