Democracy fosters a relationship between citizens and parliament. Within the framework of democracy, a spotlight is directed at the expectations of citizens from their parliament and ways to bolster the links between citizens and parliament. There are two main expectations of the citizens of Pakistan from their parliament. First, parliament should promote amongst parliamentarians the norm of upholding honesty in their dealings. In principle, parliament embodies the aspirations of citizens who, through the process of elections, construct parliament. In turn, parliament advocates publicly and stridently the political ideas of citizens: parliament may be considered a forum that does public advocacy of citizens’ political ideas. In the case of Pakistan, a disconnect is found between the aspirations of citizens and the performance of parliament. For instance, the citizens had expected that in the post-2008 era, no democratic government would countenance corrupt politicians in parliament, as in the past democratic governments had lost legitimacy owing to partaking of elected politicians in shady deals. That aspiration of citizens has now waned. Parliament is glossing over corruption cases of its members and the effect is trickling down to society, which is following in the same footsteps. In other words, parliament is showing the erroneous way to society. The Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has set an example of accountability by making his son, Arsalan Iftikhar, answerable publicly. Now, Arsalan has to face the court, prove the allegations levelled at him a farce, and avow his innocence. The citizens of Pakistan expect from their parliamentarians to follow in the same footsteps of accountability and be a role model for the members of society to imitate. Secondly, parliament should promote the cause of democracy. Medievalism (lurking in the minds of many citizens) is still a formidable foe of democracy. The idea is still cherished that autocracy dispenses qualitatively better governance. In the perspective of governance, a comparison between an autocratic regime (such as military dictatorship) and democratic rule (such as parliamentary democracy) is made. Unfortunately, it is expected of democracy to deliver even without being evolved. In the case of Pakistan, democracy has not yet permeated all spheres of socio-political life. There are islands of despotism both at the family level and within the ranks of political parties. These isles of isolation are hedged in by the walls of orthodox views that absolutism creates order while democracy engenders bedlam; and authoritarianism entails discipline while democracy results in rowdiness. Democracy is derided without realising the fact that democracy can deliver better only when it is allowed to thrive. The voice of democracy is muffled by military regimes under the pretext of introducing an improved version of democracy but the regime ends up creating a subservient parliament. In the past, the higher judiciary resisted the martial law imposed on November 3, 2007, and then, after its restoration, declared it ultra vires. Conversely, parliament has yet neither weathered any military adventure nor tried to invoke Article six to hold any military dictator accountable for his deeds. The citizens of Pakistan expect from parliament to be the vanguard of democracy and penalise those who violate the Constitution of Pakistan. Links between citizens and parliament are multiple in number and diverse in nature. There are three main ways by adopting which the links between the citizens of Pakistan and their parliament may be strengthened. First, the democratic face of the state should be made more visible. In Pakistan, in civic life, the state is visible through its coercive arms such as the Frontier Constabulary in Balochistan and the Rangers in Sindh. It means that the state has failed to project its soft image in the sight of people. Despite the presence of a democratic dispensation in the Centre, Baloch nationalists are still on the run. There has been placed no political formula to entice Baloch nationalists to join the political mainstream. Similarly, the ethnic conflict in Karachi is not being handled by undertaking political measures. No political formula has been devised to bring normalcy to Karachi. It is through democratic measures that the state can make itself noticeable and the relationship between Pakistani citizens and their parliament can be reinforced. The absence of local bodies in the country is a great injustice to the cause of democracy. Secondly, in any society, the need of presence of the government is to fashion an environment conducive to offering equal participation to all. One should be given opportunities to play the positive role one wants to play in society. Further, through good governance, the government has to arbitrate between the conflicting claims of citizens to reduce mutual friction and ensure peace and order in society. Good governance cannot be dispensed by baton charging people agitating for the fulfillment of their needs but by providing them basic amenities of life such as education, health and electricity. Thirdly, the state should understand its limits vis-à-vis the rights of the people. The state cannot pick up a citizen and make him disappear. If someone is guilty, he has to be produced before the courts. The idea is that the state is a creation of citizens and not vice versa. Thus, a state should stay subservient to its citizens and avoid inflicting injuries on them. It is the duty of parliament to take measures to shrink the distance between citizens and the state. Postscript: Since 1947, democracy has been the worst victim in Pakistan. In a country obtained through a democratic process, it is sometimes told that Pakistanis and democracy are not meant for each other. Consequently, it is a duty of all Pakistanis to keep on promoting the cause of democracy, before a hackneyed excuse of failure of democracy is forwarded to disrupt their democratic dreams. The writer is a freelance journalist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com