It would obviously involve expanding the pro-Musharraf coalition by inclusion of those who agree to join the Cabinet in support of the President. The President has laid it down: no general election before 2007, possibly further; Mr. Pervez Musharraf has to remain president till 2007; agreeing party must support his candidature for presidency after the 2007 Elections (whenever they are held); and the party must work under the constitution as it stands after the Legal Framework Order was incorporated in it.

Reports of contacts with Benazir Bhutto have been both contradicted and confirmed through back channels. PPP is said to be discussing with the President's men the modalities of cooperation. No clear guidelines have been disclosed by PPP as to what they are insisting on. Similarly PML(N) has virtually, if coyly, admitted to some contacts, especially between Shahbaz Sharif and the President's boys. Insofar as MMA -- and one is prepared to go along with its claim of being in opposition -- is concerned, its problem appears to be the President's uniform, i.e. his decision to remain the army chief and president simultaneously. It accepts that the President should have the powers it had voted for when the bulk of the LFO was incorporated into the constitution. It has no objection to Mr. Musharraf remaining the president or being re-elected.

Let's consider the issues: The viewpoint should be concern for the future of Pakistan. First prerequisite for country's stability and unity is ending the radical divisions in the polity between those whose power rests on military's support and those outside the charmed circle of power. The term "democracy" has been much abused: it can be anything in Pakistan. Nevertheless, institutions of democracy are still there while credibly free and fair elections are absent. In the 2002 polls, the pitch was queered by the bureaucracy in selecting candidates and manipulating results. Moreover, throughout Pakistan's history, there has been no respect for the constitution or rule of law.

The national security state that Pakistan is, rulers have operated through intelligence agencies on critical matters like manipulating elections or democratic institutions. That is Pakistan's tragedy. Pakistan needs either a neutral bureaucracy or a wholly partisan one; let's be clear which is desired. If a neutral bureaucracy is desired, it has to be given safeguards against obeying illegal orders and security of service. The democracy should work the way it does in any normal parliamentary democracy. One specific problem is to the intrusion of military intelligence agencies into political affairs. That has to be stopped once and for all.

For the rest, Pakistan needs a democratic government that would tackle its social and economic problems, beginning with economic development that promotes social justice. It is no longer possible to be satisfied with GDP and GNP growth without creating massive new employment opportunities. Poverty has to be frontally attacked through a binding system of social security.

Coming back to parties, MMA's interests are limited, as noted. It has no specific ideas on economic development nor has it any proposals about social justice. It is not of one mind about land reforms. What does it think of globalisation as the regulating paradigm? No answer is audible. It only wants to fight with obscenity and to improve individual morals. Except for the President holding the two top offices (army chief and the presidency), everything else is OK. It does swear by democracy when it suits it.

Insofar as the PPP is concerned, it says on the record all the things that democrats normally agree with. But it is hard to be sure what the PPP will do in practice. The reason for that is its conduct in the two spells of being the government in the 1980s and 1990s. It accepted the army's terms in 1988, including specific Zia-vintage Ministers being retained. It allowed the army to control the foreign policy, nuclear matters and national security affairs, including the intrusive role of the intelligence agencies. The prime minister lacked (ultimate) power and yet Ms. Benazir Bhutto agreed to serve as PM twice. Considering the record, it is widely suspected that she may again agree to Mr. Musharraf's terms, if he promises not to block her path to prime ministerial office -- no matter if it is only of figurehead variety.

It is hard to be sure about what the PPP policy will be vis-a-vis the constitutional amendments that have implemented the LFO with the help of MMA and PML(Q), if Musharraf does not block Benazir Bhutto's path to office, allow freer scope to her and Asif Zardari. Doubts arise largely because it has worked under a constitution disfigured by Ziaul Haq's Eighth Amendment. That is not much different from what the current constitution is. PPP used to be a left of centre party during Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's early days, raising slogans of Roti, Kapra Aur Makan. Benazir has demonstrably eschewed it; she has worked the IMF-suggested structural reforms and allowed the social inequalities and poverty to grow. It advocates no significant economic or social change. All it now wants is democracy, the credibility of which may be compromised by its own conduct in office or the army's undiminished role.

As for PML(N), its credentials for opposing President Pervez Musharraf are still good because of personal factors. It is the staunchest opposition party inside ARD until now. It stands for original 1973 constitution sans many amendments done later -- except probably the one declaring Qadianis as non-Muslims. But its record is as chequered as PPP's. Mr. Nawaz Sharif undoubtedly was military's protege. That he outgrew his original limitations is creditable. His record remains compromised by his two constitutional amendments through which he muzzled ruling party MPs and wanted to become a dedicated Amirul Momenin of Muslims by enforcing Shariah. So long as he does not clearly condemn these two constitutional amendments, his claim to stand for original 1973 constitution would remain suspect.

President Musharraf's not allowing him inside the country, certainly not as a possible prime minister, may have something to do with his purist stand. Nevertheless, we should give full credit for what he says, provided he gives satisfaction on the question of his tendency to accumulate total power in his hands.

The outlook remains mixed. Which way Pakistan will move is uncertain. Why? because there is uncertainty regarding Pakistan's political future. Will it be a democracy? Will it remain military-dominated? Will it have a hybrid political system that preserves the military's control of all vantage points in the economy and polity, together with ultimate power, while the civilians play second fiddle to army chiefs? There is no knowing. Until there is some certainty, the country will remain unstable and weak.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.