The MQM is back in the fold of the coalition government and would like us to believe that it has taken the decision in national interest. Similarly, the PML-Q's reservations regarding the government and the resignations of its ministers submitted in the last party meeting, disappeared in thin air after telephonic assurances were given to the party head by President Zardari. Once again, the government has a comfortable majority in the National Assembly and the partners in power are all set to benefit from cooperation in the upcoming Senate elections, which will help them rake in more seats in the upper house. In the midst of the routine wheeling and dealing for petty partisan interests that has become a hallmark of democratic politics in the country, the Supreme Court announced its judgement in the suo moto case on the Karachi situation, giving us hope that all is not rotten in the State of Pakistan. 'National Interest is the magic term employed by political leadership of all hues to explain away their unexplainable somersaults and marriages of convenience. Take the case of PML-Q for instance. Senior leaders and parliamentarians from the party bitterly criticised the unpopular government and questioned the political wisdom of being a part of it. The ministers belonging to the party were not happy for another reason; they felt that they did not enjoy the power to run their ministries the way they would have liked to and that they were being denied the instruments of power and patronage that being in government brings with it. So what were the assurances that President Zardari gave to Chaudhry Shujaat that convinced him to shelve the reservations of his party and jump back into the government's lap? Was he told that the PML-Q ministers would be given the power, privileges and patronage possibilities that they were complaining about? Or did the President enlighten him about secret rabbits in his magic hat, policies that would make the PPP-led government popular and hence not such a bad thing to be a part of? For all we know, the discussion could have been about completely different matters. The PPP critics would say that their conversation on the telephone had nothing to do with either of the two issues, but revolved around Moonis Elahi and his troubles, and what the government would do to alleviate them. On the other hand, PPP jiyalas would swear by the reconciliation charm of their big boss and talk about saving the system and democracy from undemocratic forces. Reporters hobnobbing with those in the power circle and armed with unnamed, but reliable sources would come up with inside information and tell us a juicier story. Since the main characters of the story don't feel accountable to the people they represent, and do not feel that they owe the nation some explanation, the people of Pakistan would be left to themselves to draw their own conclusions. The contents of the dialogue between the PPP and MQM, and the dynamics of their on-again, off-again cooperation is similarly left to the imagination of shocked citizens, carefully decided in meetings between ace negotiators conducted behind closed doors and clouded by a smokescreen of statements that mean nothing. There is no word about Dr Zulfiqar Mirza's serious allegations, no attempt by the MQM to clear itself of specific charges he levelled against the party and no desire on part of the PPP to probe Rehman Malik whose dubious role in the Karachi crisis was boldly challenged by the former Sindh Home Minister. The two parties have obviously come to some understanding about sharing power, but they would not like us to know about the terms of that understanding. As they play their power games, they would like an uninformed electorate to have trust in them and play along. Meanwhile, the opposition parties are divided due to their own petty partisan interests and are unable or unwilling to agree on a national agenda that addresses the problems of governance. There is a readiness on their part to raise issues of public importance, but there is no effort to enter into a dialogue with each other to create a consensus on the way out of the impossible situation that the citizens find themselves in. They raise a hue and cry about excessive loadshedding when the desperate citizens can't take it anymore and come out on the streets of our cities in violent protests against the insensitivity of the government. They shed tears about the plight of people displaced by floods. They make loud noises about the government selling out to the US interests. But they wouldn't cooperate on developing a strategy to put pressure on the government to address these issues or to throw it out. So the democracy circus continues, as the problems confronting the nation mount. The political leadership continues in its power games that have lost all relevance to the public and its issues. The political bosses are deaf, even to the conscientious objectors within their parties, who bring their attention to their responsibility to the people and the dangerous outcome of the games they play. And when other, more democratically evolved institutions like the Supreme Court and the independent media manage to bring a perspective informed by the national interest into focus, they scuttle the possibility of acting in the direction by drowning out these voices of sanity in their loud partisan squabbles that are only aimed at point-scoring and furthering their petty political objectives. Interestingly, they would like the citizens to swear by democracy as an article of faith. Why would they? The argument that our democracy has problems because it has been interrupted too often does not hold. We need to look deeper into the malaise of a system that is supposed to represent the interests of the people, but ends up bolstering the fortunes of the political elite and its privileged sponsors. After all, the system of democracy has had a smooth sailing in the US. Yet, the Occupy-Wall-Street initiative has unleashed an angry movement in that country against a system that the American citizens feel doesn't represent them. The students, labour unions, the unemployed, and the underprivileged and even conscientious citizens, who have not suffered directly due to the pro-rich and pro-war policies of their democratic government, are out on the streets to challenge a system that benefits a small minority at the expense of the vast majority. It is unlikely that they could be convinced that a few more elections would make things fall in their right democratic place. The writer is an independent columnist. Email: hazirjalees@hotmail.com