As the referendum looms large on the political horizon, the only candidate for the country's top slot never tires of running down Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto for their blatant corruption.

With great conviction and energy, General Musharaf keeps reminding us that he has rid the country of "looters and plunderers", and has ushered in what he calls "the true essence of democracy". While he may well be right on the first count, I'm afraid a one-sided referendum of questionable constitutional validity is hardly a democratic exercise.

Ironically, just as Musharaf makes corruption a major issue, President Chirac of France is poised to win a second term by a landslide in the second round of voting in the presidential elections. Clearly, French voters see nothing wrong in voting for a man who has had a number of allegations of financial impropriety levelled against him. When he was the mayor of Paris, he is supposed to have fiddled with the allocation of low-rent government owned properties, and as the president he stands accused of misusing state funds for family holidays. In both cases, he has had to seek immunity from prosecution.

One of his predecessors, Giscard d'Estaing, was famous for accepting diamonds and hospitality from one of the more vicious and corrupt West African leaders. Over the years, many French politicians have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, but nobody has suggested that the army should intervene and clean up the mess. Italy, too, has been plagued by interminable corruption scandals. Indeed, politics in the country is virtually synonymous with bribery, but the democratic process has not been derailed as a result. The current prime minister has had to fend off a wide range of accusations, but has neither been imprisoned nor exiled.

Japanese politicians from the ex-prime minister downwards have a well-earned reputation for running scams and taking kickbacks from mobsters under the euphemism of 'political contributions'. When publicly disgraced, some of them have had the grace to commit hara-kiri. But despite the scandals, there has never been any suggestion that the democratic system had failed.

The United States is the world's oldest continuous functioning democracy, and its history is full of colourful politicians who thought nothing of taking a commission for services rendered. Indeed, they and the business community have enjoyed a long, cosy and mutually profitable relationship that thrives to this day. Where else would you have the president and half his cabinet with close links to the oil lobby that is benefiting from liberal government policies? And where else could a presidential candidate's brother determine the outcome of the tightest election in history by a highly contentious count? Despite the outrage over the result and the uncertainty that preceded it, the tanks did not start rolling towards the White House.

For much of his two highly successful terms, President Clinton was the target of accusations ranging from fiscal impropriety to serial sexual misconduct. For months, his impeachment was the focus of much of the world. We spoke of little else as the lurid (and often censorable) details of the Lewinsky case were aired and endlessly discussed in the media. And yet even the most reactionary of Clinton's right wing opponents never suggested that the army should take over.

The point I am trying to make through this brief summary of political, sexual and financial scandals that have occurred in mature democracies in the recent past is to demonstrate that in these societies, it is the voters who determine the fate of their leaders, and not generals and their civilian stooges. Also, I suggest we put our own corruption in context: we are neither unique, nor original in having an unsavoury collection of sleazy politicians. Even affluent societies have their share of scams and conmen who have entered politics.

None of this is meant to suggest that such behaviour is acceptable or should be condoned. The fact is that in a democratic dispensation where the press is free by definition, law-breaking is enthusiastically uncovered and revealed. Under autocratic rule, information is tightly controlled, as is the press. As a result, many scandals remain out of the public eye. It is also true that human nature being what it is, there will always be greedy individuals who seek to feather their own nests from the public exchequer.

This tendency can only be reduced through a free press, a strong parliament and an independent judiciary. Ad hoc, biased institutions like our current National Accountability Bureau are associated with a government or an individual and generally have a politically motivated agenda.

Time and again, political governments in Pakistan have been first destabilized and then toppled through rumours of real and concocted scams in high places. While there is little doubt that both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have misused their positions to amass large fortunes, are we willing to hand over our destiny to the army as a result? We have seen that corruption is a way of life in many countries, but they have not discarded democracy. And what assurance do we have that the army is above temptation? If our rich experience of military rule is anything to go by, khaki uniforms and gold braids are no guarantee of clean government.

Much of the accountability that has taken place so far in Pakistan has been flawed due to clear bias. Asif Zardari, Benazir Bhutto's spouse, has been in jail for six years now, despite the fact that he has not been convicted in a single case. Indeed, various courts have given him bail in all the 14 cases the government had charged him with. Now some new charge to do with the illegal import of a car has been quickly concocted. I am hardly a fan of Mr Zardari's, but do feel that the ends of justice are not served through such blatant victimization. Mr Nawaz Sharif, that champion bank loan defaulter, on the other hand, has been sent off into luxurious exile in Saudi Arabia.

In any case, it is absurd to discredit democracy due to the acts of a few individuals. Whatever its faults, it is a system that is ultimately responsive to the needs of the people in a way an autocracy simply cannot be. I know we are an emotional people given to over-reacting, but must we throw the baby out with the bath water?