As Socrates once wisely noted, the ability to select capable leaders and make informed decisions relies heavily on an electorate’s understanding of the complex issues at hand. Democracy, as a system of governance, has been touted as a universal ideal. However, when assessing its suitability for a country like Pakistan, we are compelled to reconsider whether this system aligns with the nation’s unique circumstances. Pakistan’s history of political turmoil, inefficiency, and instability raises material questions about the compatibility of democracy in our region. In the pursuit of stability and continuity, we are forced and must explore alternative governance models, keeping in mind successful countries that have thrived without embracing a purely democratic framework. One of the primary arguments against democracy in Pakistan is our history of unstable governments, frequent political crises, and the inability to achieve lasting reforms. We have experienced numerous interludes of authoritarian rule, reflecting the fragility of democratic institutions. Neighbouring China, with its one-party system, has demonstrated that centralised authority can provide stability, long-term planning, and rapid development. While such a system may lack the inclusivity of democracy, it can be effective in achieving tangible progress, especially in countries with diverse and complex challenges. Another compelling argument against democracy in Pakistan stems from the polarisation of its political landscape. The multiparty system has often led to gridlock and inefficiency as competing factions struggle for power. Conversely, countries like Singapore, with a controlled electoral process and a single dominant party, have witnessed remarkable socioeconomic development, efficient governance, and a focus on long-term national interests. Such stability can be appealing when compared to Pakistan’s frequent changes in leadership and policy reversals. China, with its one-party system, has demonstrated that centralised authority can provide stability, long-term planning, and rapid development. Moreover, democracy can be influenced by populist movements and short-term political gains rather than pragmatic, long-term solutions. In contrast, countries like the United Arab Emirates have adopted a consultative council system, which allows for input from various segments of society while ensuring that governance remains stable and consistent. MBS of Saudi Arabia openly questioned the speed of execution of a democratic system vs. a centralised one, during his visit to the US a few years ago. In addition, Pakistan’s fractured political landscape is characterised by corruption, nepotism, EGO, and political dynasties that hinder the nation’s progress. Alternative models of governance, like that of Qatar, have seen success in maintaining the continuity of leadership while incorporating meritocratic principles and reducing the potential for corruption. To sum it all up, it is imperative to critically examine the suitability of democracy for Pakistan. While democracy remains a valuable aspiration, the country’s history of political instability, polarisation, and governance challenges warrant a reconsideration of alternative governance models. Successful nations with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian systems have shown that stability, continuity, and efficiency can be achieved through centralised governance, meritocracy, and long-term planning. Pakistan must explore options that align with its unique context and address its pressing needs for stability and continuity in governance. The Author is an Entrepreneur and Investor in Pakistan