You gave the example of U.S so I will use that same country. U.S had slavery and blacks voted for whomever their masters decided. This was a country with democracy. I don't understand why people think Pakistan is a unique case in the history of the world.

Pakistan isn't unique - nobody believes it to be - avoid the straw man.

Your analogy is flawed because not only it is neither in any way parallel to the case you are presenting nor it is factually correct.

Struggle for the Blacks' right to vote, or Blacks' Suffrage after Civil War resulted in the 15th amendment to the Constitution of United States of America - in 1869. Even that changed nothing, as Southerners did every thing in their power to disenfranchise the Americans of African descent. It was only after the passing of 19th amendment in 1965 when Blacks were properly incorporated in the election process.

Prior to that only a few but mostly Northern states allowed Free Blacks or Negroes as they were called then to cast their votes. Otherwise Dredd Scott case had already established that Blacks weren't Americans and had no right to vote.

Slaves didn't have the suffrage rights prior to 1865 no body "forced" them to cast votes because they had no right to vote, at all, period. Fortunately, after 1865 - they weren't technically slaves anymore.

There have been far worse, far more unstable, far more ruthless, far more oppressive states that have a functional democracy today.

True.

But they all didn't magically wake up one day to see the corrupt form of democracy fixed and glowing in the light from heaven. Almost every state you can name that had the transformation ALSO DID something to make it happen - something other than undisrupted democracy is required to make the change. Democracy is just a system which requires the people with powers within it to have good intentions. Democracy can't fix itself if people within the system don't wish to fix it.

Merely an non-disrupted democracy / continuing democracy is not enough to fix the congenital maladies our country is faced with.

It will take a decade or more to fix it (which requires peaceful transition of power) and when it happens the fuedals will lose a lot of power and sway they hold today. This isn't rocket science that it can never be solved or fixed.

Democracy can't fix stuff by just being there. Undisrupted democracy isn't the panacea. It can't just be there in order to eradicate this menace. Active measures need to be taken. Measures such as those Nehru took when he nationalized the lands above a certain limit effectively curbing the influence of feudal lords. Our democracy is standing on the shoulders of these feudal lords.

You invest and bank on the process and that overtime it will overcome these issues of bad management and leadership.

Many startups failed because of this and so have many states by falling into Civil War.

Fun fact: The last 2013 election was the most fair election since the 70 election. Is there room for improvement?

I would like a quote on that from a reputable source [plus points for you if the referenced study covers the whole / major parts of the country and had been present to observe the elections at ROs level.]

It has and will always happen. It happened during the 19th century in England and U.S. This isn't something new, there was mass riggings and voter fraud going on back then.

So yeah consider it natural part of the process and let it happen while not doing anything except for marching for an disrupted democracy.

I was very clear that American Democracy is currently a model, yet it has its flaws. Even with its flaws the hope for a better future never ceases to exist there. It is because people actively work and force their governments to do the right thing and governments listen to their people because of the rule of Law.

Comparing the state of Pakistan's democracy to that of U.S or England today is an unfair comparison. You need to look at them when their institutions and democratic structure were in the same state. These things take time to fix it can't happen overnight.

Nobody expects the change to happen overnight - all we want is one step in the right direction. One bill that isn't self-serving. One motion that isn't about raising the pays of parliamentarians. One movement where focus is on providing ordinary human beings any single one of the basic human rights. One notice that isn't about making lists of those who speak against the reigning governments.

American / England and a lot of democracies managed to fix this exact issue. Again this is not some complex rocket science... all it requires is firstly peaceful transition of power. Because if it happens peacefully the next loser will cry election fraud and put pressure to make the process better and so on.

Someone has been crying election fraud for almost 4 years. The reforms presented don't address even the single concern raised. Transitions should be smooth - they must also be non-controversial and non-objectionable.

Saying that smooth transitions (but ironically not fair and just ones- as per you) are necessary so that the next loser may cry election fraud and put pressure on the government to make shit better. This, I swear to God, is the dumbest shit I have heard in last 5 minutes - you outdid yourself there man, congratulations.

No one said Democracy is perfect.... but its better then everything else. If there was something better we would be using it. It works and is tried and tested. Japan is a perfect case study of this

Technically there is institution of Khilafat that is probably the best, but hey let's not go there.

Oh Japan, good thing that you reminded of that. Please read about their financial development, social ratification campaigns, and what they did apart from 'smooth transitions" to get to where they are. Why not quote China where there is no democracy yet people seem to be contended? Or maybe Russia which also seems pretty fine and dandy to me.