There is need to debate the theory and practice of democracy; to dwell on liberal versus illiberal manifestations of democracy; to bring forward the essential features of democracy; and discuss the ethnic angle. This article refers to some literature (Keefer 2009, Zakaria 1997, Waseem 2002) to illustrate the discussion. The literature discusses the political economy origins of democracy. One theory is that democracy comes into being as the result of inter-elite quest of power. When elite belonging to more heterogeneous group consider it to their advantage to extend the franchise to other non-elite members of the society to garner their support for outcomes opposed by the other elite, it leads to democracy. However, collective action is difficult and elites often have difficulty in mobilizing the non-elites. Political parties are not mature and “institutionalized” in young democracies around the world and as a result of it, politicians often do not have the “collective incentive” to deliver better public goods such as the social services. Political elite pursues clientelist politics to gain the support of the non-elite rather than pursuing a broader economic redistributive agenda. Other than the elites-driven democracy pursuing client list politics, there is also the issue of democracies around the world becoming more “illiberal”. In other words, regimes that are being democratically being elected are not taking into account the limits imposed on their powers by the constitutions and leading to deprivation of freedoms and rights. Democracies might be booming in many parts of the world, “constitutional liberalism” is not flourishing. Half the countries considered to be going through the ‘democratizing’ experience in the world can be considered “illiberal democracies”. According to Fareed Zakaria, “Far from being a temporary or transitional stage, it appears that many countries are settling into a form of government that mixes a substantial degree of democracy with a substantial degree of illiberalism”. Moreover, the elected governments around the world are encroaching on the rights and powers of other institutions of national government, as well as, of the regional and local governments, other civic, and business groups. For democracy to properly function, it needs to follow constitutional liberalism with institutionalized checks and balances, so that it does not lead to ethnic divisions and abuse of power. For democracy to properly function, it needs to follow constitutional liberalism with institutionalized checks and balances, so that it does not lead to ethnic divisions and abuse of power In the context of Pakistan, though we have relatively mature political parties, yet the politics overall is stymied by the “structural discontinuity”. Waseem (2002) refers to Myron Weiner’s work to outline the four features of a democratic system: there should be competitive elections in a democracy; those contending for power must enjoy freedom at the operational level; results of the elections should be accepted by the losing party; and lastly the elected governments must be able to enjoy “supreme power”. In Waseem’s analysis, Pakistan fulfills the first three criteria to a large degree, but the fourth one is “problematic”. There have been many competitive elections in Pakistan. Those contesting the elections largely have had the freedom to canvass. The losing political parties have not always accepted the results of the election, yet they have decided to joint the elected assemblies ‘under protest’, thereby accepting the results of the elections in practice, even if they have reservations. However, the elected parliament needs to be truly sovereign for the elected governments to exercise the supreme power and it is often not the case. Political executives and bureaucracy also enjoy more power and legislators are assigned to a secondary role. There is centralization of power at the federal level. Ethnic issue is also important. Mohajirs and Punjabis together ruled in the initial decades of the independence. Now the Pakistani state and its institutions are increasingly identified with Punjab. The Punjab has the majority in the National Assembly on the basis of its population and it effectively neutralizes the Senate where all the provinces have equal representation. Dominance of Punjab not only leads to alienation of the other provinces, it also intensifies ethnic conflicts in the country. Going beyond the literature, politics is Pakistan is a lived reality. It is not an artificial place like Dubai, Singapore, or Switzerland. However, there are stark reminders and political analysts need to wade their way through conflicting sources of data. There have been recent tensions between the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) and the state institutions which is unfortunate. Prevention of loss of lives should be prioritized over any form of politics. PTM on its face has been fiercely anti-establishment in its narrative. However, one is also reminded of Asfandyar Wali Khan’s statement some months ago where he alleged that PTM has been engineered into a movement to marginalize the Pashtun nationalist parties in Pakistan. One needs to carefully sift facts from claims. Though, Asfandyar Wali Khan is a credible politician and his statement must be given the due weightage. Waseem in the literature cited above discusses the pattern of “institutional and constitutional engineering” in Pakistan. Given that history, Asfandyar Wali Khan’s statement cannot be summarily dismissed. S.M. Naseem (2006) refers to a social scientist’s views on the urban middle classes being antagonistic towards democracy and this group behaviour is somewhat unique. Urban middle classes might have gotten more politicized than before, yet there is need for further reaffirmation of politics. The left parties have been weak and ineffective in Pakistan. Therefore, the urban middle classes not only need to take more interest in politics, they also need to align with the reforms constituency at the intellectual level in the country. The writer is an Islamabad-based social scientist