In yet another pro-people judgment, the Supreme Court has ordered the Election Commission of Pakistan to take action against legislators who had submitted fake degrees in order to contest the 2008 elections. Regardless of the fact that the requirement of a Bachelors degree was subsequently scrapped, news abo-ut the forgery of documents by more than a few MNAs and MPAs further erodes the credibility of our democratic dispensation. More and more legis-lators are being exposed every week, making mid-term elections a real possibility. Whether the elections are held later this year or in 2013, the whole exe-rcise would be meaningless unless it is preceded by measures that restore the credibility of the democratic process. It has been reported that the government is planning to pass a law that will save the skins of legislators who stand to be disqualified due to their forgery. This should not come as a surprise to anyone as the government has consistently acted to undo any momentum for positive change generated by the honourable courts decisions. It would also prove, once again, that the government is only concerned about safeguarding its petty power interests and a corrupt-to-the-core status quo. If the PPP-led government is as inspired by the concept of democracy as it claims to be, it would be moving in a very different direction. Clearly, there are serious problems with what is dished out to us as democracy in Pakistan. The most valid argument advanced in support of continuing with the democratic dispensation despite its shortcomings and distortions is that it creates an environment conducive for improvement in the system. Is that really so in actual terms though? Take the case of fake degrees, for instance. The case has brought a forgotten but important aspect of politics to the fore; principles, something that see-med to have vanished from the politics our mainstream parties play. After all, it is not only about power. By supporting unprincipled legislators who did not hesitate to forge documents in their lust for power, the champions of democracy are sending out the clear signal that the pursuit and retention of power are the only worthwhile goals for them. The politicians are being viewed more and more as monsters driven by their greed and least concerned about the welfare of the people in whose name they govern, and of course this does not bode well for democracy. Any leadership sincere about strengthening democratic institutions and values would seriously focus on changing this public perception and treat the Supreme Court order on fake degree-holders as a blessing. By acting against legislators holding fake degrees, the leadership could pave the way for cleaning the parliamentary stables and bringing in a better crop of politicians. This would send a positive message to the electorate that is getting disenchanted with the politicians and the democracy they sell. In fact, the government, as well as the opposition, should work together in this exercise and go a step further by bringing the papers of all candidates who contested the 2008 elections under scrutiny. Even the losing candidates should be disqualified if they were found to have submitted fake degrees in order to be a part of the race. And to make it more effective, those with fake degrees should be barred from contesting elections for the next 10 years if not for the rest of their lives. To restore faith in democracy, a higher standard needs to be set for those desirous of representing the people. It is not so much about how well-qualified they are but about basic qualities such as integrity. Politicians need to have a better image, to be seen as people who are driven by principles and a desire to serve the people rather than unscrupulous parasites that are only interested in making it to the assemblies by hook or by crook. The next elections, whenever they are held, should result in bringing a better quality of legislators to the assemblies, and eliminating the fake degree holders from the race which is an important step in that direction. At the same time, to ensure that the next assemblies are more representative, it is essential that they are held on the basis of new electoral lists that include a large number of new voters and eliminate the equally large number of bogus voters. The present lists favour the traditional candidates and mainstream parties that have actively worked towards introducing these bogus votes in the list, the same parties that are extremely unpopular among millions of young unregistered voters. The decision to make the computerised national identity card a condition for voting is also important for fairer elections. Another important step for strengthening democracy in the country is to reduce the importance of money in the electoral exercise. In the present state of affairs, money is an important ingredient of contesting and winning elections. Though there are laws that are supposed to restrict the amounts that candidates could spend on financing their campaigns, they are mostly ineffective. In all likelihood they are meant to be ineffective, providing enough space to those who wish to flout them. New rules of the game that regulate how candidates bring their message to the people need to be made so that democratic leadership is not the privilege of the moneyed. The question is: why would those sitting in the assemblies who are mostly beneficiaries of these undemocratic trends bring about these changes? They are more likely to keep things as they are and strengthen their hold on power, however short-lived. The irony is that this behaviour on part of our political leadership defeats the only valid argument in favour of supporting our pseudo-democratic dispensation; that it creates an environment that is conducive to improvement in the system. As things stand, the democratic dispensation seems to be determined to keep the system as it is. In fact, there are many examples of how the ills of the system are being strengthened. Remember the way the entire political leadership colluded to eliminate the condition of party elections in the Eighteenth Amendment. The positive stimulus will have to come from outside the mainstream parties. The writer is a freelance columnist.