Democracy and institutions have a complex relationship that is generally not well understood. The common perception is that democracy’s weakness or strength owes itself to the weakness or strength of institutions. The way to strengthen democracy is thus to strengthen the institutions. As if institutions were the sum total of democracy had an existence independent of the society, and could be strengthened without reference to it. Equally simplistic are the perceptions about the relationship between democracy and how societies change. The reality is, societies change not because they have become democratic; they become democratic because they have changed. Of course, once democracy takes roots it provides a strong foundation for a sustained change and progress. But if societies try to become democratic without having changed, not only democratisation but also the change becomes difficult or remains perfunctory at best. The illusion of democracy thus ends up masking many of the societal flaws and power imbalances opening us up to an uncertain future. The role of institutions is critical to the success of the long and painstaking struggle by societies to change and democratise. And they have to be strong to serve both these ends. But how do you strengthen the institutions as they are not really extraneous to society? They are a product of the society, the way it is organised, how it addresses the challenges of state and nation building, and above all, where the political power resides and to whose benefit? The institutions thus have an organic linkage with the society reflecting as well as affecting its power structure, values, intellectual capital, and the organising idea. They do not stand alone which you can fix and thus fix the society. The view — if democracy is not performing, it is due to the weakness of the institutions — is indeed the way the thinking in the West goes. It makes sense in advanced democracies where institutions and democracy have become one integrated whole. But for us to deduce from the Western experience that all that is required to strengthen democracy is to strengthen the institutions is faulty logic. Western aid agencies and NGOs who also have bought into this view for their own reasons go a step forward. Their favourite hobby horse as a solution is capacity building. Institutions in Pakistan are reasonably strong. The issue here is not of the capacity building; it is their moral strength we should be concerned about. And if they lack moral purpose and substance, it is not because of lack of able people, or poor understanding of their vital role in good governance, or participatory democracy. It is their orientation and performance we should be worried about. The problem with Pakistan’s institutions is not weakness but their trivialisation and abuse, by subservience to centres of power, organised and dominant social groups at the top, and by their subversion at the hand of uncontrolled layers of militant religious, sectarian and ethnic outfits at the bottom. The institutions lack autonomy and integrity. They are strong enough to perform well on their own and behalf of the centres of power but lack moral strength to perform on behalf of the people. That is where they need to be strengthened, not in their capacity which they have. But you cannot strengthen Pakistan’s institutions without addressing the substance of its society, and without taking into account its many fault lines, competing visions of national identity, religion and culture, the state of education, and influence of extremism that have all compromised the institutions by putting conflicting demands on them. The institutions are being pulled in opposite directions between status quo and change, personalised rule and democracy, and between extremism and moderation, and exclusivity and inclusivity. The biggest threat we face as a country is the creeping extremism, in thought, action and belief, and our escape to the world of illusions and emotions. We believe that democracy will defeat extremism but do not realise that democracy itself risks being defeated by extremism. The challenge, therefore, is about changing the purpose and integrity of democratic institutions, and not about strengthening or reforming them. It is about reforming the society and the system which makes it easy to empower only the empowered who hijack the institutions and go on to strengthen their class and institutional interests. In essence, the institutions need to be democratised so that they start serving the purpose of democracy. And that will not happen in isolation. Change has to begin elsewhere. Yes, Pakistan is witnessing a visible economic turnaround, but for a long term stability and progress of the country, you need to address the multiple other issues as well to improve human security, justice and fairness in the society. And above to make democracy work. Otherwise, Pakistan will remain in a precarious situation — progressing and regressing the same time. The writer is a former Ambassador and teaches at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown University