IF 2024 taught us anything, it was to expect the unexpected. We saw how the national elections were manipulated. We saw how a coalition of failed politicians was hoisted into the corridors of power. We knew who the real decisionmakers were. Civilian institutions like the administration and police services appeared to be pawns of those involved in political engineering. The myth of judicial independence was shattered. Votes cast legitimately were allegedly disregarded through a fraudulent counting process supervised by a weak-willed Election Commission. People`s disaffection and hunger for change went unheeded. It was a year of discontent.

The year 2025 so far has seen how power is harnessed through draconian laws, the suppression of the media, and political manoeuvres through controversial constitutional benches.

These are the undeniable realities that must be reckoned with. The breach of trust between the state and society is alltoo evident and it is also clear democracy in the country is a mere façade.

The dominant mood today is one of confusion and despair. The problem is that we have lost our vision of a future that encompasses empathy, tolerance, freedom, liberty and justice. Tragically, the truth is shut out as our self-respect and dignity are repeatedly called into question. This is not what our founding father wanted us to be an enlightened, democratic polity. What went wrong? Are we ready to face the reality of this ignominy? Post-1947, our first two army chiefs were British. The first native chief imposed martial law, abrogated the constitution of 1956 and became the president. He conferred upon himself the elevated title of field marshalwith little to show for it. His decade-long rule of socalled development ended in widespread disaffection and protests. He was deposed by the next army chief who oversaw the loss of the eastern wing of Jinnah`s Pakistan in 1971. The western wing then experienced a turbulent phase of civilian rule. A major development was the near-consensus passage of the Constitution of 1973, ushering in an era of parliamentary democracy as a federation, promising autonomy to the four federating units.

The democratic phase of the 1970s was disrupted yet again. The army chief appointed by the civilian chief executive imposed martial law in 1977. He became president even while remaining the army chief and gave himself extensions during his decade-long rule, which saw the persecution of political opponents and prosecution of an elected prime minister, who was awarded the death penalty by a compliant judiciary. The 1980s witnessed a decade of decadence when religiosity and hypocrisy reigned supreme.

The death of the general in an air crash in 1988 brought the civilians back to power but the prime minister, who belonged to the PPP, was handed over the reins only after conceding major decision-making in the foreign policy and national security domains to the defence establishment. Thus, the foundation of a hybrid governance framework was laid in 1988. Civilian governments were changed one after another during the 1990s. And then another chief deposed the prime minister who had appointed him, leading to a decade of `enlightened` military rule from 1999 to 2008.

Since the 2008 elections, we have seen two major political parties lead coalition government s and complete their five-year parliamentary tenure up to 2018. However, no prime minister has survived to complete a five-year tenure due to the actions of the actual decision-makers. In the 2018 elections, a new experiment saw the emergence of a popular sports hero who was ensconced as chief executive. His ouster and subsequent prosecution and conviction in corruption cases follows the rule book of the powers that be. People in power change while the methods remain the same. The present dispensation seems to have set new standards of authoritarianism.

Many justifiably argue that for a progressive polity and liberal democracy to prevail, what is needed is a national movement against politicalautocrats and religious extremists. `The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,` said Martin Luther King Jr. The progressives suffer from various maladies: inertia, and the lack of a solid liberal platform that can generate a movement for adherence to the true spirit of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

The real strength of liberalism has always lain with the academia, civil society organisations, progressive lawyers` bodies, human rights institutions and grassroots cooperatives and unions.

Today, they lie scattered, rudderless and leaderless. Collective cohesion is missing. A central question is: how can you do politics when the ground has shifted so decidedly in favour of kleptocracy through an obviously rigged electoral process? We see a national crisis of liberal democracy. A challenge is to figure out what pillars a movement for true democracy will stand on. The decay of decent liberal values must be addressed within the full spectrum of the sociopolitical and economic frameworks.

We need to forge a model that counters the authoritarian threat. The ascendant forces of oligarchy and autocracy must be defeated through concerted, non-violent grassroots movements.

Let the urban youth and rural farmers combine their energies to galvanise the educated, urbane, honest middle-class communities to forge partnerships against retrogressive elements. A manifesto prepared by liberal progressives along these lines can turn the tide against the entrenched forces of elitism and fortune seekers who thrive in a state of reactionary status quo, led by those outside the political fold. Working together on this project to capture the fragmented attention of the people can help the country once again startitsjourneyin the direction of a liberal, democratic and enlightened polity. We have a dream: a future of dignity, liberty and justice. We should be able to face the truth.

It may hurt, but it also heals. • The writer is a former inspector general of police.