Many political observers contend that the entire system in Pakistan is rotten. One cannot be sure that they know what precisely they have in mind when they speak of a system. For facility of reference, it may be said that a system is an interacting combination of agents who operate to liberate or inhibit one another’s capabilities. It is not tenable to think of a system that is comprehensive enough to include all domains of life: politics and governance, economic arrangements, social organisation, and arts and letters. It is more useful to consider each of these domains as a sub-system. It is not likely that all of these sub-systems are rotten at the same time. In Pakistan, one of the systems is working superbly and a few others are doing reasonably well, and then there are some that are in disrepair. The higher judiciary, that is the Supreme Court and the provincial High Courts, are held in the highest esteem. The Supreme Court is regarded as a gift of God to the people of this country. They look to it for correcting situations that strictly speaking fall outside its jurisdiction. They feel it is good that the court has been going out of its way to right wrongs because the agencies officially responsible for taking corrective action are not doing their job. The main function of the court is to say what the constitution and the law are and to enforce them. Normally this happens when an aggrieved party contends that it has been denied protection of the law to which it is entitled. Acting on its own initiative the court has also been identifying violations and evasions of the law and ordering the concerned agencies to take remedial action. It has indisputably the authority to separate right from wrong but its ability to enforce its findings is problematic. It is a known fact that President Zardari’s government has ignored many of the court’s directives during the last five years and it has been able to get away with its defiance. The court on its part needs to take care that it does not intrude upon the executive’s domain. The generality of people regard politics as dirty. This designation is based on the premise that the practitioners of this craft cannot be trusted, that they do not say what they intend, and that they make promises that they know they are not going to keep. This assessment may not be entirely unfounded in certain cultures but not in others. In the United Kingdom for instance, politics is a worthy profession. The same may be said of most of the west European democracies. It has been a mixed bag in Pakistan particularly during the nearly five years of Yousaf Raza Gilani’s governance. He and his close associates are generally perceived as having been both corrupt and incompetent. The preceding governments were not as bad and it may be expected that the one returned by the next election will be reasonably trustworthy. More than 120 groups are registered with the Election Commission as political parties. Anyone dissatisfied with his current role and status in society and looking for a position that will afford him a sense of importance can recruit a few friends and relatives and get letterheads printed that name him president of a party. In fact, only about half a dozen groups may claim that status, namely the Pakistan People’s Party, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid, Pakistan Muslim League-Functional, Awami National Party and Muttahida Qaumi Movement. The last two are strictly speaking regional rather than nationwide spokesmen of ethnic groups. We also encounter groups for whose existence there is no apparent rationale. There is for instance the Sunni Tehrik. Considering that the vast majority of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent are Sunni, the reasons for its presence in politics cannot be other than an enigma wrapped in a puzzle. It is conceivable that its purpose is to caution its adherents that the Shia and other minorities may be troublesome. If that is the case, its mission will provoke sectarian conflict. The chief election commissioner has recently told the political parties that they will be allowed to participate in the forthcoming general election only if they have held their own internal elections. The Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) are the only parties that have done so. In most of the others, party officials have been named by their respective heads. Leadership is hereditary in several of them, going from father to son to grandson or another close relative. Consider the following instances. PPP: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Bilawal-Bhutto-Zardari; ANP: Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Abdul Wali Khan, Asfandyar Wali; PML N: Nawaz Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif, Hamza Sharif, Maryam Sharif; PML Q: Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain; PML F: Pir Pagara, his son, the new Pir Pagara. The Election Commission’s directive to the parties to hold internal elections is going to be difficult to implement because, to the best of my knowledge, none of them, with the exception of the JI and PTI, maintains rosters of their members. Folks do not normally enroll as members of a specific party. They have attachments that guide them during elections but these may change from time to time. Political parties in Pakistan have, at times, tended to become chaotic and dysfunctional because of factionalism. This was particularly true of the PML following Mr Jinnah’s death in 1948. Even today there are groups within each party that have different views on the issues at hand but it seems that these differences are resolved or set aside and they do not lead to the party’s disintegration. On the whole, the party system seems to be working well. The parties contend with one another to send their nominees to the national and provincial legislatures. The performance of these assemblies is not entirely satisfactory. Many of their members are indifferent towards their assigned role. Assemblies are forums where issues are debated. That requires participants to listen to one another. Members of our assemblies are not inclined to listen to speakers from the other side of the aisle. They prefer to shout them down and, occasionally, they will engage them in a fistfight. It may be said that there is nothing wrong with the system as such. It is messed up by the men and women who operate it. They will not follow its designated decorum and procedures. Let those who advocate revival of the pious caliphate understand that if they were to install a contemporary counterpart of Umar bin Khattab as their chief executive, members of the National Assembly, such as they are, will make life miserable for him. The pleas for changing the system are misconceived. The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net