Rumours in this country are stronger than its media. Even the press is forced to report on the basis of rumours, the origins of which remain obscure, and far too frequently events have confirmed the truth of persistent rumours. This is strange. For, it is true to a large extent -- though not 100 per cent -- that the media, particularly the press, are free. They do frequently criticise the general-President. The question frequently arises why can't the media find actual news, the source of which they know, rather than to rely on rumours that anyone can pick up in Islamabad or Lahore.

Rumours have been persistent regarding Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali. His chair is visibly wobbly. Why? because the rumours say that the President is unhappy with him and thinks he ought to go. It is certainly true that placed as Jamali was, his could only be a non-government. Anyone could see that on all matters of importance, it is the President who co-chairs the meeting with Mr. Jamali. There is no simpleton in Pakistan who cannot see where the buck stops and who really counts.

There is no doubt that the President has reasons to be dissatisfied with the working of the system he laboriously built over three years. As systems built by military rulers to perpetuate themselves go, this particular one looks particularly jerry-built.

The citizens have not failed to notice that it is a non-system and many have called it Musharrafocracy. It is a non-system and it is certainly not working with any degree of efficiency. Look at the law and order; terrorism and extremism remain untamed. Economy, for all its GDP rates, remains poised for take off without actually doing so. See the extent of poverty. And so forth.

Anyway the point is who will take the place of Mr. Jamali is a matter of wide conjecture. Ch. Shujaat Hussain says there are 50 candidates for the post in his stable alone; there might be some more elsewhere. It does not really matter who takes over from Jamali. Place on him the same limitations as Mr. Jamali had, another person in the same chair would be just another Jamali. The fault will not be of the new Jamali. It is the nature of the system: the only animation in it is that of the President alone.

That leaves scope to no one for any real initiative. All authority, power, and functional decision-making underline the omnipresence of the President in all spheres of governance. This is the direct cause of the perception. No Prime Minister can make any difference, no matter how resourceful he is or strong in personality he may be.

The context in which the people look at the system is important. In these days of information explosion, the example next door, India, has made a deep impact on Pakistan. Look at the Pakistani electronic media or the press. They have been full of gushing praise for Indian democracy. Even venal politicians there seem to be a force in their own right. It is not true that an average Indian legislator is better educated or more talented or more honest. But most of them do have two characteristics: one is, they are cogs of a big machine that works; they have a system that has worked since independence, and there has been no deviation from the Constitution, except one short-lived one. Secondly, the Indian MPs or MLAs have come through the mill, having worked in politics for decades. Even those with criminal proclivities or connections had been in politics and worked for the election that brought them to the Parliament or PA.

Look at the political system in Pakistan again. The common perception is that the whole system has been manufactured by one serving officer who needed a system to prolong his rule and protect his flanks. Which is what the system is doing as best as it can, though it doesn't seem to be good enough even for its creator. The long hands of intelligence agencies have been visible to many observers and it is not only the doctoring of elections to produce 'positive results' that they are accused of. The constitutional changes wrought by one man for a see-through purpose sealed the fate of the system. The new misbegotten constitution is perceived to serve its boss. Then, look at how was the ruling party manufactured and who did it? All the leading lights of the Q League were in 1999 members of the PML(N). After the takeover of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the quest for a new party started. All politicians know the process; it is an open secret. A desire from on high was conveyed to some of the more pliable PML leaders who started collecting other ready-to-be-renegades. And lo and behold! here was another PML and Quaid-e-Azam's name was branded on its back. It won a certain number of seats. But the management of the election also required sufficient numbers of opposition parties too to make the polls look real. The President also did not put all his money on Q League alone. He hedged and helped the formation of MMA and enabled it secure sufficient number of seats. He needed a 'reliable' opposition when the need was for opposition and for support when the need for it was felt -- as was shown in the case of 17th Constitutional Amendment.

Popular perceptions cannot therefore be manufactured as easily nowadays as could be done in the 1960s or even in 1980s. Life has a way of teaching the people; the poor illiterate farmers and others do now broadly realize what is happening in and to their country. That is a function of both the information now available plentifully from various sources, as well as the example of India. No Pakistani is ready to regard himself as inferior to Indians. If the Indians can run a democracy and throw out a government when the people become disenchanted with it, why cant they? The Indian example is now a Factor X in Pakistan politics.

Say what you will, the Indians may have made any amount of mess, but they have made a success of their political system; their institutions work; their constitution remains supreme and the order of a Judge stops the government in its tracks. They have an army bigger than Pakistan's. But it stays obedient to the government. There is no instance of any Indian general entertaining notions of taking over. True, they have as much poverty as Pakistan has or perhaps a tad more. But all their systems work and produce desired results -- including the poverty of 300 million or more Indians. This example has led Pakistan politics to acquire a neurosis: Pakistanis look at those Indians and feel diminished. While Ayub, Bhutto, and Zia could shut out the outside world for Pakistanis with strict censorship, Gen. Musharraf can no longer do this. Which is where the trouble resides.

Lest anyone thinks that the people are merely envious and have no sense of their own, it is necessary to remember that the common poor and illiterates also have eyes; they have needs, and if they do not get fulfilled they feel deprivation and angry. During the last four years the regime continues to tom-tom its economic achievements. We all know the litany, beginning with over $12 billion monetary reserves, over 6 per cent GDP growth rate, and ideal conditions for foreign investment. But there are other facts: by any count, poverty has leaped up in the last four years while it had been growing at a slower but steadier enough pace in earlier phases. Many do not get much money; prices of foodstuffs, clothes and of other facilities like schools, hospitals, and women's health centers have a way of their own to influence his judgement.

Hold a true election after a period of free politicking and see the results: how many of the big and great in the PML (Q) or MMA will return, while most of the PPP, ANP, PML(N) and other parties -- a mixed lot no doubt -- will surely return. Not that PPP and PML(N) have not been tested. But these are among the few parties that have stayed in the political field and have kept on talking about popular welfare, despite many distortions and many of their legislators having the same social characteristics as the official lot. No Eldorado can be created overnight by a genuine democracy. But it can provide solace and satisfaction to the people that their rulers will go on making efforts. It brings stability to the nation. Absence of free polls means that our MPs are not capable of demanding an explanation of where have $35 to 37 billion loans during the last 20 years gone. There were about $8 billion in grants and about $35 to 40 billion have been received in remittances. What have the governments to show for this massive inflow of funds? Where is this money? Is any of it invested? Such questions were needed to be asked more persistently but were not. Why? But they will be attended to in a democracy, though not in today's system.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.