AT the critical turning points, our people and political parties have acquitted themselves admirably well.

Between November 3 and 7, 1975 the maturity of our man of the street was proven in one of the most volatile sets of circumstances ever to confront this nation. With no government in sight or palpable to senses and, potential anarchy and subterfuge lurking all around it's the ordinary citizen who emerged as the sole peace-keeper in those three days. our common people behaved most responsibly at that critical hour with stoic indifference to the volatility that could easily induce people into taking the law in their own hands or settling old scores on a rampage. But good sense prevailed in that stressful situation.

it was basically a law of nature that superseded political affiliations of people and came into play in that somewhat unique context. People's hearts beat in unison when they face common dangers to their existence

or survival.

The political parties, too, at critical junctures, have closed their ranks by a shared perception of threat and challenge posed by totalitarianism to democratic pluralism. Such a copybook explanation of the rarefied positive chemistry may not always work. Even so, as far as the framework of understanding announced on November 19, 1990 by three

political alliances (BNP-AL-Left formation) went, it was a marvellous piece of consensus building that

helped the oust Ershad movement to eventual success. Notably, the document signed on November 19 and the popular upsurge bursting forth in a crescendo to seal Ershad's fate by the first week of December 1990, the connection cannot be glossed over. Even if the motive had been to ensure that none of the alliance partners gained control of the movement separately and hijacked the benefits to itself, there was nothing wrong with the attitude for all practical purposes. in fact, it was pragmatic and healthy thinking. But it does throw up a message for

contemporary consumption, which is this that all good things require a degree of collective anxiety and nurture to be preserved and sustained.

In any case, it is this hallmark of consensus-building that proved extremely short-lived. Even though the 19-point package of understanding was essentially designed to sustain democratic culture through a rapid consolidation of the institutions of democracy hitherto thrown into atrophy was given an indecent burial

immediately after the 1990 election. it proved to be a marriage of convenience despite serving a very useful purpose between November 19 and December 6.

it had envisioned vibrant parliament, independent judiciary, autonomous audio-visual media and free press. if that document of consensus were lived up to, we could have averted many of the points of no return we have had to negotiate with at great pains to ourselves.

There have been two concrete instances of highly charged political contentions being ultimately

resolved through a process of dialogue. The examples are the 12th Constitutional Amendment marking the transition of a presidential system into a parliamentary system and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution whereby the non-party caretaker government was introduced to hold national elections.

All this is a kind of process that the ruling party did not initiate of its own volition, they did so largely impelled by circumstances. By that time we had lost many man-hours because

of political unrest being on a spiral leaving deep scars on our civic and economic lives.

it has been a tragedy of bipartisan politics in a pivotal area of democratic culture that we have always belatedly woken up to the need for dialogue.

This brief resume on consensus building has been inspired by Finance Minister M Saifur Rahman, in a manner of speaking. it is in response to his clarion call to journalists that they highlight the positive side of politics (even though unfortunately it's the negative

aspect that keeps snowballing all the time) that i made a particular point of recalling some of our brighter moments. Add to this the Communication Minister Nazmul Huda's utterance of the known of the familiar proverb -- 'there is no last word in politics'-- we are hopefully dealing with 'the art of the possible'

The need for dialogue and guest for consensus however, receded in the background because of a certain sense of invincibility key players in politics appeared to have felt from

time to time. Neither the opposition party's resort to hartal or boycott of parliament nor the ruling party's ruthless resistance to it has adversely affected their electoral fortunes. They come out elected either as the ruling or the opposition party in strength, their respective vote banks by and large behaving in a predictable manner.

Eventually this might call for proportional representation to perfect the system. That, however, need not preclude the necessity for optimal utilisation of the present system. Perhaps periodic gall-up

polls by skilled and modern pollster groups to assess public mood swings on burning issues could foster a dialogue - friendly environment.

There could be a 'free time' for the opposition in the Parliament and their MPs allowed to head some important parliamentary committees, subject of course to the principle of proportional representation.

We find no earthly reason why the ruling and opposition parties should not be genuinely interested in a dialogue. This is dictated by a pragmatic point of view topped off by a polarisation fatigue from an unabated battle of attrition so far. it will be in their supreme interest, both short and long term, that they get into a talking framework sequentially designed to reach national consensus on portrait and other issues. The list is not too long: electoral reforms with a focus around effective election tribunals, external relations, gas export, foreign aid, financial sector reform, labour reform, de-criminalisation of politics and the like. Success on any one of these items could lead to breakthrough in other areas. They will be equal beneficiaries of the consensus so forged, whether they be in the opposition or in the government. Moreover, economy which is the driving force in the present-day world will be saved from the buffetings of confrontational politics.

SH Imam is Associate Editor of The Daily Star.

***We find no earthly reason why the ruling and opposition parties should not be genuinely interested in a dialogue. This is dictated by a pragmatic point of view topped off by a polarisation fatigue from an unabated battle of attrition so far. It will be in their supreme interest, both short and long term, that they get into a talking framework sequentially designed to reach national consensus on portrait and other issues.***