Thomas Jefferson, author of the American Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States, once wrote that where annual elections ceased, tyranny began. The implication being that if the rulers got to be placed beyond the watchful eyes of their electors, they would become susceptible to temptations of personal gain to the detriment of the public interest. Annual elections did not become the norm of American politics but frequent elections did. In many democracies, legislative elections are held every four or five years. The executive, being a committee of the legislature, has the same term unless the parent body dismisses it sooner. The bicameral legislature in the US is organised differently. Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years whereas Senators are chosen for a six-year term. Observers believe that the two-year term of the members of the House, known as Congressmen, keeps them on their toes. Theirs is virtually a full time job, and while they spend much of their time in Washington, they do visit their constituents and respond to their needs. Members of the British House of Commons have a five-year term, but that does not make them unmindful of their duty as lawmakers or their role as representatives of the people. Like their American counterparts, they too stay in touch with their voters, try to take care of their constituency’s interests, and even do errands for individuals and organised groups. Members of parliament in Pakistan do not feel and act quite the same way. They do run errands for the more favoured among their constituents, but their attitude towards the function of making laws is not entirely serious. For one thing, the executive in Pakistan prefers to govern by presidential ordinances, which may be re-promulgated every four months. It does not bring very many legislative proposals to the House for consideration and enactment. Normally, no more than half a dozen bills may be passed by the National Assembly and the Senate during the 120 days the parliament is to remain in session. Apart from the Public Accounts Committees of the two houses, proceedings of the other permanent committees that consider and report on proposed legislation, and the ensuing debates on the floor, are perfunctory. It is possible that these attitudes on the part of parliamentarians have something to do with their longish five-year term of office. It is long enough to induce in the minds of the people a sense of remoteness regarding the promises candidates for office had made during their preceding election campaign. It is likely also to abate the elected officials’ sense of obligation to do things for their constituents. It is a known fact that the great majority of legislators in Pakistan are large landowners bearing the ethic and ethos of feudal lords. Included among them are some wealthy individuals from professional groups, commerce, and industry. They are not to be expected to make laws and adopt policies calculated to advance the lower classes. Political analysts will tell us that it costs about 10 million rupees to contest a parliamentary election. That kind of cost is evidently beyond the reach of the middle class. The wealthy can afford this large outlay if it is to be done once every five years. It is possible that contesting elections will not cost as much if they are held more frequently. The platforms of various candidates may become news items, which the media may want to cover without cost to the candidates. Television debates between candidates without cost to them may also become possible. The wealthy would be free to take advantage of these possibilities but so would persons from the middle classes. With freer access to the processes of communication many more middle class men and women may win elections and find places in the legislative assemblies than has been the case to date. Frequent elections will bring heightened political activity to society. Politics, seen as the competitive pursuit of power and authority to order society, is universal and inescapable. Varying models of a good society will come up for the people’s approval. They should be politically aware if they are to make sensible choices. Needless to say, frequent elections in which rival candidates project and defend their respective programmes will enhance people’s understanding of politics. In its absence the door is left open to the emergence of authoritarian rule. It is often said that democracy in Pakistan is not quite the genuine article. Observers say also that the remedy for any deficiencies that may have crept into our democracy is to have more of it. That will necessarily mean having more elections. We have to go beyond elections for representative office. Political parties, which organise and conduct election campaigns, need to democratise their internal organisations and operational styles. They do project the appearance of internal elections, but their predominant characteristic at the core is that each of them is essentially a one-man show. We encounter a difficult problem here. Most of the parties, possibly other than the Jamaat-e-Islami, do not maintain lists of their members at the ward or mohallah level. Elections at that level cannot therefore be held. Party functionaries in the locality are in most cases appointed by officials at the higher — district, provincial, national — levels. This practice is of a piece with the tradition of centralisation that has dominated our governmental and political organisations. It has to be discarded if the more recently proclaimed goals of devolution are to be met. The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at dranwar@lahoreschool.edu.pk