Ahead of of the scheduled November 2007 elections in Pakistan, the two former Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, signed a "Charter of Democracy" on 15 May 2006, in London. Since then, the democracy debate has intensified in Pakistan. The charter outlined the future strategy to be adopted by the leadership of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (N) in order to strengthen democracy and ensure good governance in Pakistan. Presently, there is anticipation, speculation and rumours about the possible political fallouts. But, what does the charter desire to achieve? How does the present Pakistani establishment judge the credibility of the charter? Could the Benazir-Sharif duo successfully implement such an ambitious plan while staying away from their homeland?

The charter promises sweeping changes in Pakistan and envisages a virtual restructuring of the country. It raises concern over issues like erosion of the federation's unity, the military's subordination of all state institutions, the marginalisation of civil society, the mockery of the Constitution and representative institutions, brutalisation of society, breakdown of the rule of law, and the unprecedented hardships facing the people under military dictatorship. It goes on to specify major constitutional amendments, code of conduct, free and fair elections, and improved civil-military relations. It says, "The military dictatorship and the nation cannot co-exist - as military involvement adversely affects the economy and democratic institutions as well as defence capabilities, and the integrity of the country - the nation needs a new direction different from a militaristic and regimental approach of the Bonapartist regimes, as the current one". Thus, the charter questions the credibility of the military rule in Pakistan.

The two exiled leaders promised to reaffirm their commitment to undiluted democracy and universally recognised fundamental rights, including the rights of a vibrant opposition, internal party democracy, ideological and political tolerance, working of the parliament through a bipartisan committee system, a cooperative federation, decentralisation and devolution of power, maximum provincial autonomy, empowering people at grassroots level, the upliftment of women and minorities, an independent media and judiciary, a neutral civil service, and so on. It is premature to analyse the practicality of the charter, but if the alliance holds, it could eventually turn into the most significant stance to date taken by the country's main parties against the military's stranglehold over politics.

The ruling Pakistani establishment believes that the agenda of democracy is not genuine and it is an agenda to safeguard the interests of the 'self-exiled plunderer politicians'. The Federal Minister for Religious Affairs, Ejazul Haq, said, "Now the drama of self-exile should be ended, and the plunderers should return home to face the public, who have become aware of their politics." The Pakistani establishment questions the credibility of the charter and also the unconstitutional and undemocratic practices of the ministers during their respective tenures, which resulted in the premature demise of their respective governments. The Information and Broadcasting Minister, Muhammad Ali Durrani, said that "any democratic accord can only be signed by the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan and the people reject this as political adventurism of the two politicians. It is a new deception to seek another opportunity for loot and plunder by these leaders." President Musharraf called the Bhutto-Sharif pact as "ironic" as these two leaders were enemies of democracy during their tenure.

Barring past performances of the two parties, the agreement will have little practical value without the main leaders' physical presence in the country. The charter, however, skirts the critical issue of a definite date for their return. But, the most critical question is, even if the two leaders move forward, leaving aside their past antagonisms; will Musharraf regime grant them immunity and not prosecute them on their return? If they return without the consent of the government, Sharif would be in breach of the agreement with Musharraf to live in exile, and Bhutto, who has been accused of corruption, would face certain arrest.

Whatever the final outcome, the thought of a democratic principle that governments should be changed only through the electoral process should not fail, once again, to strike roots in Pakistan. It is a strategic move and both the parties are engaging Western countries in their pronouncement of democracy as this might create enough pressure on Musharraf to create the right condition for a transparent election. Whether the West obliges or not, the 'Magna Carta' issued by Bhutto and Sharif binds them to the most important principle of democracy, and that is to give adequate political space to the opposition.