The February 18 verdict of the people, despite some instances of rigging as reported by the observers of EU, by and large, heralded the emergence of democracy, which would ensure the empowerment of parliament and the robustness of other pillars of state - executive, judiciary and media - functioning freely within their prescribed orbits. Contrarily, in the present paradigm of governance, one leg - the judiciary - is functioning on an artificial limb provided by the general (retd) through the illegal process of proclaiming "emergency" and by summarily dismissing the learned judges of the Supreme Court, whose conscience did not allow them to obey the illegal orders of the military ruler. No constitution is worth the name if it provides a general (retd) absolute freedom to impose emergency, and remove the learned judges of the Superior Courts, dismantling the democratic order and appointing judges of his own choice, and above all amend the constitution at his will. Is this the system we wish to perpetuate? If a government servant is so sacrosanct to modify the constitution, theoretically he can take other steps also, like dismissing the whole lot of executives suspected of not being loyal. Media is the usual casualty of authoritarian rulers, who have very low threshold of tolerance for dissent. One of the worst impacts of the dictatorial governance is that it never promotes "culture of consensus," which is the distinguishing feature of democracy. A culture has to learn to be democratic, it is never an inborn trait of a society. Like typical Mughal darbars, some politicians, under dictatorship master the art of sycophancy notwithstanding intellectuals and writers, who barter their pens for utilitarian interests. It is unfortunate that some constitutional experts are insisting that the restoration of judges can be made only through a two-thirds majority of both the Houses. An act, which the president himself acknowledges was "unconstitutional" why can't it be righted by one executive order, is hard to comprehend. The previous cases where the judges succumbed to the pressure of the gun, are being constantly cited to justify as legal precedence for the continuation of the same legal aberration, which the nation should get rid of and sooner the better. What did the nation do to reward those conscientious judges who refused to take oath under PCO? Not a single one was appointed as governor or even vice chancellor of a university. Had Chaudhry Iftikhar Muhammad also not taken the oath, the pernicious legacy would have persisted. The exemplary courage that he demonstrated is the reason why he has become a national hero. After all, someone had to set a right precedence. By not restoring to their pre-November 3 position would be a gross injustice. Justice Fakhruddin G Ibrahim and the most gifted lawyer Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan are the living legal legends of the country and we must listen to them. The occasion for triumph for celebrating democratic reversion is rather premature, unless the judiciary stands on its own legs and conspiracies, palace intrigues to defeat the democratic system is collectively thwarted by the politicians and that they must not succumb to the temptations offered by the covert manipulators. Larry Diamond, in his very recent article, in the prestigious magazine Foreign Affairs (Mar/Apr 08) identifies a rather disappointing trend in the world: "In a few short years, the democratic wave has been slowed by a powerful authoritarian undertow and the world has slipped into a democratic recession." He cites numerous examples of countries where democracy has been stifled, like Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Venezuela and most recently Bangladesh and the Philippine. The author further maintains that even in the countries where democracy found its way like Chile, Ghana, Poland and South Africa, they are facing acute problems of governance and consequently the "disaffection" he says has "deep pockets." In South Asia, the author comments that India is surrounded by "politically unstable undemocratic states." He grossly overlooks the fact that keeping the neighbours unstable is India's major strategic objective. If you act like a "bully" nations naturally gravitate towards "security" by surrendering their freedom. In India also, the story of democracy - the biggest in the world - is not that rosy either. Kuldip Nayar a very celebrated Indian analyst, in his article: "The declining scene of tolerance, mentions how violent the society has become. In his own words: "The escalating violence in the country is frightening. Still more frightening is the shape, it is taking. Somewhere it has turned communal, somewhere regional and somewhere ideological. Whatever the direction, it indicates a trend where the rule of law is lessening and where the use of force is gaining legitimacy." (The Nation, May 13, 2008). Wearing a democratic apparel alone does not ensure democracy. It is the spirit that needs full nurturance. Larry Diamond, in the article cited above, has very cogently argued: "Emerging democracies must demonstrate that they can solve their problems and meet their citizens' expectations for freedom, justice, a better life and a fairer society. If democracies do not more effectively contain crime and corruption, guarantee economic growth, relieve income inequality, and secure freedom and the rule of law, people will eventually lose faith and turn to authoritarian alternatives, struggling democracies must be consolidated so that all levels of society become enduringly committed to democracy as the best form of government and to their country's constitution, norms and constraints." The learned judges of the Supreme Court, who have been dismissed at the mere whim of the general (retd) is legally and morally an incorrect and a preposterous act and unless they are restored with full dignity, we cannot claim that real democracy has ushered in our country. It is only a change of form, with the difference that what was being done by the general (retd) overtly, is now being enacted covertly. Negroponte, Boucher and a whole lot of geopolitical manipulators do not allow democracy to take deeper roots in Pakistan. The problem is the same in most of the Muslim World. We have to jealously guard against the democratic culture, being mauled and metamorphosed into authoritarian-ship. It shall be a great betrayal. Nations, who are not proud of their style of governance, tend to devalue every institution, and a process of decay and degeneration sets it. The people, who are the arbiters of their destiny, must never be robbed of their rights and obligations. That is the way we earn respectability and sense of pride. We have a very outstanding army and other forces of defence, which can safeguard the integrity and freedom of the nation. But our waywardness as political entity is at the root of the problem. Political maturity is the need of hour. Democracy for the Americans is only a propaganda ploy, but go deeper into their hearts, the authoritarian ruler tends to be their very favourite choice. Reason is simple. It is much easier to get the objectives achieved through him rather than the parliament. When shall we get rid of this pernicious legacy? Can we ever be a sovereign country? These are the issues which haunt the masses. The major political parties have failed to provide the fourth leg - real and respectable judiciary. Now, the masses - seemingly have resolved to accomplish a wholesome rather than a lame democracy. The lawyers, the civil society and vast number of politicians have resolved to join the movement for the restoration of the judiciary and not equating them with those appointed by the military ruler. History is often made by the people. Winston Churchill was right in saying: "Perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right than be responsible and wrong."