ELECTION season, or preelection season at the very least, whichever you choose to define it as, is upon us. Both the government and the opposition are fully in pre-election mode. However, given the vagaries of Bangladesh politics, this does not consist so much of setting forth policies for the future and initiating debate on the choices that are available to the public (character assassination and casting aspersions on one's opponents' honesty and competence do not constitute debate).

In Bangladesh, pre-election season continues to mean endless debate (though it must be said, little resolution) on the modalities of the elections and minutiae of constitutional interpretation. There is no doubt that this is in its own way a necessary

and critical discussion, but it says something about the political dysfunction of the times that such argument eclipses and any meaningful debate on policy differences between the two sides.

I suspect that the vast majority of voters, while resigned to the constitutional bickering and political maneuvering and the more or less tribal and personality-based politicking that have come to mark elections in Bangladesh, would welcome a frank statement of where each party stands with regard to a wide range of issues so that each voter can make up his or her mind about the path the country is to take.

It is true that one of the regrettable features of our political culture is that in terms of policy there is often little to choose from between the government and the opposition, and that more than the

stated policies, it is voters' assessment of the integrity and competence (as well as party loyalty) on which they base their vote.

There is a great deal of assessment at the local level of which vote will be more advantageous to a community, but regrettably, that too has less to do with who will enact what policy than it has to do with careful calculation as to who holds the balance of power in a certain locality, the efficacy of being represented by someone from the party of government, and consequent analysis of which candidate that is likely to be.

It has little to do with policy and this is in fact one of the problems which we need to fix. From a philosophical point of view, the idea behind universal suffrage is twofold. One is that it is the manifest right of every adult citizen to

have some voice in his political trajectory of his country, and that government without the consent of the governed is illegitimate.

But there is also the practical reason, and that is that a functioning democracy is the best check against poor governance and that the combined wisdom of the masses as represented by the popular vote is the best guarantor of a system that offers the best shake to the most people.

To the extent that our elections are marred by money or muscle or intimidation, it is fair to say that the will and wisdom of the people is being thwarted and that it is no surprise to learn that we have been enjoying only partially the supposed fruits of democracy.

There is constant grumbling about democracy not having delivered for Bangladesh or how it is functioning poorly. It is worth

repeating the point that democracy in Bangladesh has only worked as well as we have allowed it to work. Any failures in the system can largely be put down to deficiencies in our democratic culture, and the solution to this is surely more democracy, not less.

But returning to my main point, that the more informed the public is about the choices available to it and the wider the policy debate, the better for the country. The need for free and fair elections are a given, the sine qua non for things to get better, but we also need to focus on what issues will be raised and what issues voters will be able to express an opinion on in free and fair elections.

What the country is most interested in is what each party has to offer. What would a new 4-party alliance government mean in real terms for their lives? What would a 14-party alliance government mean in practical terms.

Nor is it enough to make vague or generalized promises such as more security, better law and order, less corruption, etc. People want to know specifically which policies will be implemented. The IT sector want to know what will be done to facilitate this industry. The garments sector wants to know what support the government

can offer it in a time of expanded international competition. Farmers want to know what policies will be in place to ensure timely and affordable fertilizer and fuel. Rural voters want to know what infrastructure development schemes will be put in place.

How these are carried out and the integrity and competence of those who carry the policies out, of course remain important. But the policy itself is often they key. To cite just one example of an area in which it would be nice to have some answers: how would each party address the issue of the continued insolvency of state owned enterprises?

The political parties need to get their manifestoes ready from now so that the voters can make an informed choice if and when they are able to cast their votes. Nor should the manifestoes be enormous tomes of ponderous prose like in the past, but should be a concise statement of principles, and more importantly, concrete policies that they will pledge to enact within five years if elected. And we should hold them accountable to their words.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.