In modern political history there have been two major sources of political change in state and societal structure -- ballot or bullet.  By ballot it means when people vote and give their verdict for a change in government, and by bullet when they come out on streets and stand against the established political order better known as the revolution from below. 
Out of the 192 UN nation-states those who are ruling the world and fall into core and even semi-periphery (First and Second World) are the one where change is sought through ballot.  They are democratic governments based on people’s mandate without suffering from crisis of participation and representation.  One can hardly see the name of a core state where military or undemocratic forces rule. Many underdeveloped and even semi-periphery states fall into the categories where there is lack of representation system and free choice of vote.  They suffer from the leading crisis of political development such as crises of legitimacy, participation, representation and penetration. 
A large number of OIC states unfortunately are without good democratic setup.  Pakistan can be included in the list with the only exception that off and on process of democratization is experienced with the sad fact that those who ruled the country for longer period of its existence entered through back doors and tried to legitimize their stay by pseudo democratic and constitutional tactics.  Nevertheless, all discussion and pros and cons of when and how democratization was allowed or discouraged, the 2008 elections have brought the country once again on the crossroads of democratization. The recent elections mark a watershed in Pakistan’s political history as they took place at a critical juncture, giving another chance to our political leaders to choose the path to future democratization against all challenges of instability and chaos. Held in the atmosphere of distrust and uncertainties with low turn out, the masses however, have shown that they still believe in change for the better future of this country under an established democratic order -- a difficult feat, but by no means impossible. The mandate was the reflection of the dissatisfaction and disapproval of the masses. The honoring of the mandate is essential for the future integration and promotion of the federation.  
The mandate shows that masses believe in the free expression of their will to select a government. The voters in black and white voted against President Musharraf and his supportive political party, PML, despite all the state propaganda and interference in their favor in pre-polling days. Frustration and dissatisfaction among the people would increase unless there is strengthening of political institutions and meeting of their demands. The gap between input and output (crisis of representation) during the past few years was greatly accountable for the defeat of the PML.  It is a prime lesson for the new government to pay heed to people’s demands and not to develop the gap between the rulers and the ruled.
       The mandate necessitates and demands restoration of deposed judges. They all have become a symbol of rule of law. Being more focused on the issue, the PML-N where reaped more benefit, there voters have aspirations from other political groups to get judges restored. Although, the issue has emerged as a matter of prestige and survival for President Musharraf, the rule of law and integrity of the country should not be subjected to the authoritarianism of a person.  It is a fact that the treatment the deposed judges received made a mockery of the rule of law. Like any other country, things can go well as long as judiciary is playing its role properly. And the issue if not solved will keep the civil society at unrest. President Musharraf, though backed by the US and his GHQ constituency, sounds inadequate. 
       The mandate requires that the new rulers are neither remotely controlled nor dependent on America. If they follow parliamentary norms and enjoy the support of legislators, they can have the middle way. America can never see any Muslim country emerging as a regional power through democratic means or revolution from below. Any leader from a Muslim country emerging as a national leader from grassroots of popular representation will not be in favor of associating his country’s interests with the US.  It was true in case of Adnan Mendres, Bhutto, Nasser, Mahatir, Erbakan etc. The American interests in many a Muslim country, including Pakistan, can be served better while they are under a regime suffering from the crisis of representation and legitimacy ---- a factor accountable for the US support to military/authoritarian regimes. 
       The mandate shows that people reject the ruler-type role of army in politics, a feeling commonly sensed amongst those in uniform. Army should play the role of guardian in case there develops a political crisis and not the ruler type by coup d etat.  Army, unfortunately, in Pakistan has played the role of ruler type role. They take control of the government as a trouble shooter in political crisis and believe in the implementation of a number of reforms in the important sectors of the political, economic and social system.    The praetorian rulers are concerned with changes in the basic structure of society by labeling and discarding the previous one as useless.  The decision and commitment of Gen. Kiyani as the COAS to keep the army out of politics, call back the uniformed officers serving in civilian institutions, appears as a good omen for the future politicalization of society, a fact also lauded by public.  
       The 2008 elections are historic as people gave their mandate against the established order and rejected the policies of President Musharraf and the PML. The mandate is a trust and will have to be honored for a better change.