Compromise is very much a part of the democratic process. But are 'deals' a part of this system? In our case they obviously are since in these days of startling revelations coming at us from all sides, it has been admitted by no less than Head of State Asif Ali Zardari (notwithstanding subsequent denials by his spokespersons) that he is where he is thanks to a 'deal' brokered with our international minders at some point after the assassination of his wife and that the same, or another, 'deal' involves state policy towards his predecessor, General Pervez Musharraf. Merely in relation to this present regime, we are aware that at least two (if not three) 'deals' have been done to democratise the country in a manner satisfactory to the desires of the US and its European partners. So, we must assume that 'deals' are democratic since we are assured by those in the world who pull our strings that we are now a democratic country. The dictionary definition of a 'deal' fits our present democratic state of being: "A secret arrangement in commerce or politics entered into by parties for their mutual benefit." None can deny the mutual benefit that has accrued to both the US and to Zardari by the deal(s) so successfully concluded. Democracy is stated to be by the party in power "the best form of revenge." In the present case with 'deals' predominating, democracy is the only form of revenge open to it as the 'deals' prevent any other form of material revenge. The revenge has come in the form of the taking over of the Presidency and Parliament and the giving in on other issues. The first 'deal' that we knew was firmed up sometime in early 2007, probably near the time that Musharraf fluffed up so insanely by taking on his own appointed chief justice of Pakistan. By this 'deal' Benazir Bhutto was to be brought back, participate in the scheduled general election, and the National Reconciliation Ordinance permitting to become the prime minister of democratic Pakistan, with Musharraf (minus uniform) seated comfortably, all his powers intact, in the Presidency. That 'deal' was tragically scotched at the end of December 2007, making it necessary to broker a fresh 'deal' with the man who had taken over the PPP, the party emerging triumphant in the general election of 2008. The 'deal' must have been done prior to March 5, 2008 when under the NRO Zardari was cleared of five corruption charges as part of a court ruling which "abolished the cases against all public office holders" (he was cleared of the remaining charges on April 14, 2008). It had obviously been ordained that his goal was the Presidency and that Musharraf would be eased out as he appointed his own prime minister and did not stand in the June 2008 by-elections. So, it would seem that the entire impeachment exercise was part of the 'deal'. Full marks to Zardari for confirming what we suspected. He has of late suggested that we embark on a truth and reconciliation binge - well, the reconciliation has been taken care of thanks to the NRO and to the various 'deals' struck with our masters and mentors taking care of his government, entrenching it, and of Musharraf and his golf or whatever. Truth is quite a different matter - it is either unpalatable when uttered or inadmissible. It is impossible to expect any of those involved in politics, the administration, the judiciary or the media to come out with the unvarnished truth about anything pertaining to the governance (or rather lack of governance) of this country. One other suspected 'deal' might well have been done between Mian Nawaz Sharif and the US and other powers, as he is displaying uncharacteristic patience and forbearance. What has he been promised or assured? That his turn in the applecart will come if he plays ball and does not materially cause any upsets? In his case, we must revert to the first acknowledged 'deal' with the Kingdom and his reluctant exile, after which undoubtedly subsequent 'deals' were undertaken regarding his return and the status of Musharraf and Zardari. And where does the rumoured lease (or sale) of millions of acres of state land fit in? In politics and statecraft there is never any question of something for nothing. As far as AfPak is concerned these are the days of 'deals', they are the neo-democratic manner of negotiation and they involve "buying, renting or bribing" as has been clarified by Fareed Zakaria writing in the September 13 Washington Post: "The focus must shift from nation building to deal-making. The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the population and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered....Buying, renting or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centrepiece of America's stabilisation strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan....The deal-making should extend to the top....In a few years, Afghanistan will still be poor, corrupt and dysfunctional. But if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups. That's my definition of success." There it is - Pakistan has been and continues to be bought, rented and bribed, and for the mutual benefit accrued by our democratic leaders happily go along with it all. They are fortunately not bothered by conscience, as they shed whatever conscience they had many years ago. Zardari's political travels started in 1988 and the Punjab Mian's a decade earlier. They are seasoned campaigners. The writer is a freelance columnist.