ANY neutral, apolitical observer cannot help but wonder why history continues to repeat itself so frequently in the country.

The lingering political chaos is reminiscent of how our politicians had behaved back in 1977. Amid all this uncertainty, there have been debates and discussions these days about the form of government in the country, with people asking if the 1973 Constitution, prescribing parliamentary system, happens to be sacrosanct.

A few excerpts from the preface of a 2003 book, Dysfunctional Democracy: A Case for an Alternative Political System, by Iqbal Mustafa, may be of interest to some readers.

`Shouldn`t we be re-evaluating our constitutional structure if its violation has become so frequent that patch-work counter measures are needed to remedy it? `If democracy has no substitute for governance, then it is equally important to have a structure that suits the naturaland historical temperament of the people for whom it is created ... Constitution is like clothes; it must fit and it must look good.

This book is an attempt to dispel the myth of immutability of a constitution, that we have come to attribute to the 1973 Constitution (by dint of a theological bad habit perhaps) and to open the readers` mind for alternatives to the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy that has proven to be terminally unsuitable for our socio-political makeup.

Here, I would like to add my take on the issue. In fact, we have no alternative to be governed under a truly representative democratic system. But slavishly and foolishly ignoring various peculiar aspects of our cultural anthropology will produce the results that it has produced so far in the country.

The readers will most probably agree that Allama Iqbal was not an ordinary personality. About the British parliamentary form of government, he said: Jamhooriat Ik Tarz-i-Hukoomat Hai Keh Jis Mein; Bandon Ko Gina Kartay Hein Tola Naheen Kartay.

Giving the same weight to a person who votes for a `geemay wala naan` as to the vote, for example, of a learned man heading some university is nothing but ignorance. Equality of people before law or in cases of human rights is indeed important and desirable.But political equality is sheer foolhardiness and serves the vested interests only, especially in a country like Pakistan.

In the not-so-distant past, John Major`s government in the United Kingdom had a majority of just one, single MP in parliament composed of over 600 members.

The government comfortably completed its term. Can we ever imagine such a happening in our country? We can at least begin to acknowledge the ground reality.

Shameem Ahmad Karachi