We start with a simple question. Cyanide is known to be one of the deadliest poisons, where a small amount is enough to change a living organism into a dead body. We assume that someone deliberately puts a label on the cyanide’s bottle, which reads as honey. The first question is that if we call cyanide honey, so does this name change affect the chemical composition and its lethal effects? The answer to this question will be unanimous and undisputed. Even Imran Khan and Asif Zardari would agree that whether we call it honey or sugar, cyanide will continue to be cyanide and will kill anyone who dares to consume it. Unlike our democratic leaders and political zombies, it offers the same treatment to the rich and poor, industrialists and workers. Just like calling Nawaz Sharif Asif Zardari will neither change him as a person nor will it affect his hard learnt lessons in the sacred environment of Saudi Arabia, calling the poison a sweet name does not change its chemical composition and effects. It will play exactly the same role nature has assigned to it. Now we come to the deliberate act of labelling the cyanide bottle as honey; either the doer of this act is psychologically sick, and in this case psychologists may add up a long list of technical terms. Or, in the other case, if he was well aware of the lethal properties of the compound, the doer must have some wicked designs, behind such a brutal act, which may vary from a poor housewife to our richest leaders, who represent the masses of poor and hungry. Labelling the bottle, in simplest terms, is an act of communication, imparting of information. With the divine duty of guardianship, our democratic leaders communicate non-stop. What do we call them if they claim the existence of A, while actually it does not exist? What if they tell us that the substance in the bottle is honey, while actually it is cyanide? Our respected and learned senators recently expressed their concerns about the democratic system and announced that conspiracies are being hatched against democracy. To understand the exact nature of democracy’s vulnerability, first of all, one needs to know the exact coordinates and physical features of our beloved democracy. Putting aside the state of democracy, I will appreciate if someone can confirm its existence in the land of the pure. Long ago, as a student in junior grades, it was quite easy to learn its world famous definition: government of the people, by the people and for the people. This may be the case in other democracies but not in Pakistan. As an adult and having observed the state of affairs, the Pakistani version of democracy seems to be the government of the family, by the family and for the family. Before the government was the Zardari family and now it is the Sharifs’ turn. Analyse the affairs of the state; Pakistan today will look like the ‘Islami Jamhuria Sharifia’. Nawaz Sharif serves his premiership for the third time, though he still needs to believe that he runs the show. Pray for his long life and he will never find anyone else to whom he may entrust the future of the nation. We still do not have a proper foreign minister because there is no family member available to fill the post. The people of Punjab have the honour to see Shahbaz Sharif as a chief minister, for a third time as well, and listen to his decade-old rhetoric day and night. Even if health does not allow, he is determined to continue issuing random and on the spot orders only to forget the previous ones. For the rest of Pakistan, since the supply of family members is limited, it could be left on its own. It is such a democracy for which the dictionary is of no help to understand the meanings of autocracy. Four mainstream political parties run around one personality or family. The ruling party, the PML-N prides itself as the housemaid of Raiwind palace. The PPP, Bhuttos’ legacy, now resides in Zardari’s harem. The PTI is nothing but the shadow of cricket legend Imran Khan. And the Pakistani passport of Altaf Hussain is the top priority of the MQM. With such firm belief in the one man show, one wonders why we do not move towards the presidential system of government. The journey of a democratic government starts from fair and free elections. The Pakistan Election Commission, in its nature and composition, can do anything except that. The funny thing about the general elections 2013 is that every political party complains of rigging. On May 11, Imran Khan lashed out at the government for its alleged role in rigging the 2013 parliamentary elections. He demanded the formation of a new and fully independent election Commission and vote verification in four constituencies. As believed by some, even if democracy is the name of impartial elections, what if the votes of citizens are hijacked? After all, no one can deny that political parties have developed hijacking people’s opinion into a black art. However, a democratic form of government is far more than this. Democracies prosper on some well understood and practiced values, attitudes, practices and principles. Adult citizens of a democratic government exercise power and civic responsibility directly or indirectly. Citizens are encouraged to shape their own future by the local government system. However, what an irony that the last time the elections for local government were held under the auspices of a military dictator. Consecutive democratic governments only found excuses to postpone having iron control on the usage of development funds. Thus, it does not matter if the citizens of Rawalpindi hate the so-called ‘jangla bus’; they have to suffer it as the Punjab CM needs a political show to prove him as a good administrator. It is nice to talk about the benefits of democracy on television shows and in the drawing rooms of Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. Democracy is the government of a majority but in our country it has become the constant and putrid tyranny of minority. We may call cyanide honey but we cannot ignore the pungent fact that the government and state have become a courtesan to one family. We all know the political credentials and statesmanship of our respected incumbent president. All key ministries are filled not by the virtue of merit, rather on personal relation and loyalty basis. The democratic system of government is best as it allows the collective wisdom of society to come into action for the common good. But, what we see is that family decisions trickle down to the masses. Lack of vision and randomness is the law of the day. In a democracy, one is free to call a terrorist a martyr and civil dictatorship democracy. But, we must not forget that by changing labels, cyanide does not become honey. The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be contacted at qmparis@gmail.com