“Tread a worm on the tail” John Heywood states,” and it must turn again”. Shakespeare with his artistic stroke gave it the authenticity, states, “the smallest worm will turn being trodden on”. A few days ago a former Pakistani premier, trodden upon, blamed a few army generals for all the national ills. Certain quarters enthusiastically welcomed his statement of calling a spade a spade, without naming or blaming the institution that held the spade. Zarathustra’s valiance was laudable, but it was not the whole truth, ‘it is only when the truth is shallow’ Nietzsche says,’the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters’. Nietzsche also knew that when stepped upon, the “worm doubles up. That is clever. In that way he lessens the possibility of being stepped on again”. In the language of morality this doubling up is humility and humility means to keep the vistas for the future open. Pushed to the wall, was the former premier trying to live dangerously, striving to own himself or the bite of the conscience had finally taught him to bite his former benefactors? Marx would have preferred to simulate it with historic retribution, the instruments of which were not forged by the offended but by the offender himself. The first blow to the French monarchy visited not from the peasants, he reminds, but from the nobility and the Indian revolt was not launched by the dispossessed wretched of the earth but by the well-fed sepoys. The assault upon the praetorian guardsdid not come from “the tortured dishonoured and stripped naked ryots but from theclad, fed and petted, fatted and pampered” person, once a handpicked puppet. Despite the cacophony and applause from the civil society—neither civil nor society—and a section of media, the demand was neither new nor unique. Without flirting with the system he demanded an unhindered, civilianrule with no fingerprints of armyweighing over it. The demand is genuine, the democracy as defined by Lincoln is the government of, by and for the people but when ‘legality’ is in danger, which means the interests of the ruling class are threatened, isn’t the apoliticalused for the political ends to subjugate the subaltern? The apolitical in reality is political. The leaders who love democracy in public abhor it in private. Most of the major parties have a dynastic structure, they are the private properties of a family, they do not believe in intra-party elections The institution of the guards struck the Pakistani state overtlyin its infancy. Behind the scene, the balance of power had already shifted in its favour. The inept, impotent and corrupt Muslim League holding itself in power without legitimacy bludgeoning the people with a coercive wand of religion was averse to elections. Like Chinese socialism, Pakistani democracy had its own character; it was a dictatorship of a class over the poverty-stricken God-forsaken people in a country taken in the name of God. In the western wing especially in Punjab the emerging mercantile capitalists seeking stability gleefully welcomed Ayub’s takeover, without realizing the danger of a Frankenstein emerging from the army’s ranks. Later events, Yahya’s martial-law, the fall of eastern wing, Bhutto’s judicial murder, Zia’s totalitarianism and Musharraf’s mediocrity called moderation, not only strengthened army’s control but also promoted the interests of unproductive comprador bourgeoisie. Lest we forget Nawaz and other rich-by-night characters, today the champions of democracy were the products of the same authoritarianism. The class character of the vulture capitalism was evident. On coming to power, Nawaz went on to dispossess the people through his neo-liberal policies. The cooperative scam, privatization of banks at throwaway prices, freezing of foreign currency accounts, assault on the Supreme Court, and last but not the least the privatization of primary schools in his last stint were few of his favourite policies. None of these credentials are convincing, neither as a democrat nor as people’s advocate. “People’ Bakunin says “will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labelled as people’s stick”.In the neo-liberal era democracy has become such a stick, a tool for domination with which the shepherds of our time, escort the people to their graves. Capitalist democracy reduces people to mere numbers, they can elect a leader but cannot lead themselves; this is where the sham nature of bourgeois democracy becomes obvious. “If democracy means self-government of free people with justice for all”, Marcuse says” then the realization of democracy would presuppose the abolition of existing pseudo-democracy”. People are free when the fetters of economic necessity are broken. Marxism alone provides the tools and methodology to analyse the essence and phenomenon of capitalism. No wonder that after the crisis of 2008, George Soros asked Eric Hobsbawm to undertake an in-depth analysis of Marx to understand the madness of economic reason. While analysing the two-fold character of labour, Marx also defined the dual nature of commodity having use and exchange values, a historic discovery in political economy applicable to all relations that formed under capitalist mode of production, including democracy. If liberty, equality and democracy have no use value for the masses and democracy means the democratic abolition of thought, and choosing the chosen ones again and again,it is not worth fighting for. The leaders who love democracy in public abhor it in private. Most of the major parties have a dynastic structure, they are the private properties of a family, they do not believe in intra-party elections. Even those representing the bourgeoisie have a feudal structure, for them democracy is a fetish. In Pakistan, the intra-class conflictis taking placebetween a weak civil bourgeoisie represented by Nawaz and a strong military capital having ties with and access to international capital/markets apparently led by Imran. Its strength can be gauged by AsimBajwa scam, (The Sun, 2020) a tip of an iceberg. Despite its gigantic proportion folded in the flag of patriotism,the scam is shelved where many others of its kind are hidden. In this equation, people stand nowhere. The politicians want the people to believe that an overambitious army is making the system sick, but in reality the sickness of the system is creating an over-ambitious army. For Marx, property is theft for it is a stolen labour. Those believing in property structure not only steal workers’ labour, but oppress their struggle through brute force. From the workers’ state of Paris Commune to the violent destruction of democratic governments led by the Marxists in Latin America, Africa and Asia, the military helped to overthrowthe Godless dreamers, wasn’t it dispossession through the political involvement of the armed forces? Pakistan’s economy is contracting. It is time to reflect upon three areas, the drastic reduction in defence budget, the immediate land reforms, collectivization of land to maximize the agricultural production, and levying heavy taxes upon the industrialist class, denying them the subsidies and other exemptions. Despite no immediate threat from the enemyand nukes in its arsenals, the guards in control will refuse to relent. Any attempt of altering the land structure will be resisted by the PPP, and any assault on the interest of parasitic capitalist class will be stalled jointly by the PMLN, PTI and the guards. This is where the class unity of all belligerent groups will become obvious. In this power struggle the saga of protection of democracy is a farce for the dominant interests do not align with the interests of the people and it is time people should realize the betrayal while trusting in their power of changing the world. The writer has authored books on socialism and history. He can be reached at saulatnagi@hotmail.com