WE are now half way through the second stint with democracy, which is still fragile.

The idea was and still is to make institutions strong and independent; to make parliament supreme and a symbol of our democracy.

We still feel threatened by an unseen, extreme and unconstitutional step. The analysis revolves around the decades old speculative question `are the establishment and government are on the same (hypothetical) page?` The question is: why can`t we get out of this uncertain situation. Are we failing the democracy or is it democracy which is failing us? The army chief is the most popular person among masses today. It should have been the prime minster in the limelight for good reasons as armed forces work under him. But this is not the case.

Why? Some of the reasons are as obvious as daylight; one being disrespect shown by our politicians towards the sacred institution of parliament by not attending it.

Despite drawing heavy salaries, perks and privileges, they do not attend parliamentary sessions. Instead, they take to the streets. The government holds public gatherings to announce projects, while opposition tries to woo its supporters to criticise the government by organising public rallies and sit-ins.

Theideabehind thisis toensure thevote bank remains intact. The proper way in a democratic setup is to announce public interest projects in parliament following which the opposing parties can debate on them.

This absenteeism, among other things, is a clear breach of people`s mandate. One wonders why then we even need this parliament if things are to be settled in the streets? Anas A Khan Edmonton, Canada