While giving his presentation on electoral reforms, Safdar Siddiqui described it to be an issue, which needs urgent attention by the forces of civil society.

He alleged that an elitist alliance of the feudal, industrialists, bureaucrats and the clergy have been plundering the nation, and the public pays price for their misdeeds. However, he saw hopes in the leader of new military regime: "Now a person has come forward who knows real democracy and interests of the public very well."

He emphasised to mobilise the civil society both at intellectual and political levels, and to launch massive movement for revival of economy, land and electoral reforms, and social change. That process over a period of two years might cultivate conducive environment for holding elections, he added.

He noted that numerous laws were enacted to make the electoral process fair, free and transparent but those laws were not observed by those contesting the elections. He also discussed the authenticity of the elections held in the past and also the level of confidence on the political process. He maintained that a debate should be initiated at all levels to further discuss the issue.
Safdar Siddiqui concluded that it was high time for the intellectuals, journalists and thinkers of Pakistan to evolve a strategy that could end the prevailing feudal hegemony to ensure people's participation in governance. Here, he also presented his 21-point formula to reform the electoral system.

Most of the seminar participants, however, were skeptical of Safdar Siddiqui's method of analysis. It was noted that his reform agenda was arbitrary and wishful. Everything that sounded good had been put together in his paper, which he read out before the seminar.

His appraisal of the military regime was also taken into exception, while another participant objected to his indiscriminate use of jargon i.e. civil society, that requires to be defined specifically rather than been used in general sense. It was also apprehended that his agenda, if taken as an administrative measure would further divide a pluralistic country like

While citing the elections of 1970s, one participant viewed that basically it was the strength of the political parties and the process that gear things into right direction, not the inert good intentions of individuals laid out as 'good governance'. Nevertheless, Safdar Siddiqui said that he was an activist and his reforms plan was always open to appropriate amendments.