PROSPECTS of restoring democracy in its true form and substance are dim as the `hybrid system` has seemingly surmounted the first four hurdles political resistance, economic crisis, institutional pushback and global nonacceptance. These were confronted early on by a politically engineered system.

Thus, most mainstream political parties are on board, while the PTI-led opposition is in disarray.

A reasonable level of macroeconomic stability has also been achieved under the IMF`s relentless pressure. The 26th Amendment has literally `broken` the back of the judiciary the last bunker in a besieged democracy. And finally, the government has secured the `support` of the US administration, as is evident from President Donald Trump`s favourable role during the war with India; the army chief`s reception at the White House; `concessional` tariffs and the `agreement` to jointly explore oil and minerals in Pakistan.

All this raises two questions: has the `hybrid model` proved itself to be `successful`, as claimed by none other than the defence minister? Or, is it the collective defeat of civilian institutions trying to save the Constitution and democracy? At the outset, it is important to explore the meaning of `success` in the context of a degenerated political dispensation. Does `success` mean the consolidation of power by crushing the opposition, subjugating institutions, luring global powers and enlisting IFIs? Or, are the true metrics of a political system`s success reflected in its democratic genesis, good governance and institutional checks? History shows that Pakistan and its people have paid the heavy cost of rigged public institutions in the form of repression, polarisation, dysfunction, corruption, wars and insurgencies. In fact, thousands of bright and promising minds have left the country, driven by insecurity and despondency.

No hybrid set-up has proved to be stable.

Hybridity is inherently fissiparous and selfdestructive. Bereft of a popular mandate, it survives on the coercive capacity to withstand countervailing forces. Its structural (civil-military) divide renders decision-making and execution cumbersome and conflictual. It breeds friction and adhocism, and even paralyses the key components ofgovernance.

Moreover, weak or missing institutional guardrails allow it to turn repressive, exclusionary and blind to people`s legitimate needs and demands.In the end, it generates public disaffection, anger and even alienation from state institutions. Then there is the critical issue of power-sharing. No matter how sanctified and inviolable on paper, the civilian authority remains under attack due to the inherent civil-military asymmetry of power. No wonder, the PTI-government failed to sustain the `hybrid model`. In fact, the PTI`s disastrous falling out with the establishment continues to hit the party, if not the entire country.

But, then, how does this disastrous and constitutionally untenable `hybrid model` keep returning and upstaging a fledgling democracy? The answer lies in the tragic failure and betrayal of the traditional model of leadership. For long, the political system has desperately needed a popular, bold and transformative leadership. But such leadership has either been stymied or eliminated if it rose to challenge the prevailing powerful forces.

Instead, premium has been placed on a `leadership` that is pliable, if not grossly unscrupulous.A brief survey of the annals from 1958 to the present shows that every authoritarian/ engineered system has recruited a new batch of opportunist and crooked politicians, in addition to retaining the old loyalists. Unsurprisingly, much of the PML-N`s leadership was inducted into politics during Gen Zia`s dark era; just as many of PTI leaders were parachuted into the party at its `relaunch` in 2014. Similarly, the present `hybrid model` also boasts a sordid mix of both old power brokers and new faces introduced by the establishment. And that explains why much of the mainstream leadership remains eternally invested in the same brand of status quo politics built around a neoliberal agenda, elitist organisation and sham democracy.

Thus, it is not that political leaderships are too `weak` or `divided` to contend with powerful forces. There are many instances when they jointly and severally pushed back powerfulforces, if their personal or political interests were fatally threatened. Their unwillingness to institute a solid and irreversible democratic constitutional order is rooted in their class interests, political pedigree and grooming at the hands of undemocratic forces. And that also explains the eternal itch that the mainstream parties the PML-N, PPP, PTI, JUI and MQM-have repeatedly shown to ally with their nemesis, ie, the establishment, rather than their fellow democrats. It is their blind quest for power and wealth that has grievously injured democracy and left the poor masses at the mercy of a repressive, violent and extortionist dispensation.

No wonder, the country now stands grounded in a dark, oppressive tunnel. And the darkness is increasing as the itch to embrace the `hybrid model` is catching on beyond the political establishment.

This `hybrid model` seems to have also endeared itself to a section of an already divided and leaderless judiciary. Moreover, an `influential` lobby among the powerful bars have also become staunch votaries of hybridity. They are happily complementing efforts to further undermine, rather reverse, the constitutional framework that was consensually forged on the anvil of the 18th Amendment. The targets of the putative constitutional amendments are largely provincial autonomy and resources, particularly, the `rebalancing` of the NFC award. Whether the provinces, including the PPP-ruled Sindh, are allowing their financial resources and administrative powers to be drastically curtailed is uncertain. What is certain is that the intended politico-constitutional reengineering is bound to instil greater instability, conflict, provincialism, repression and destitution.

As ever, only the people and democracy will pay the cost of never-ending political engineering. It is shameful. India, for all its ills, has lifted more than 270 million people out of poverty over the last 15 years. But here, the number of people who have fallen below the poverty line (already, more than 110m or 45 per cent of the population)is projected to swell further.

It raises an apt question for the defence minister: is this the `success` of the decades-old `hybrid model`? • The wnter is a lawyer.

shahabusto @hotmail.com