JUSTICE KM Hasan is the talk of the town nowadays. Justice Hasan is supposed to head the next caretaker government for a neutral, free, and fair election to be held in January 2007. This is what his predecessors, Justices Shahabuddin Ahmed and Habibur Rahman, had to do. Justice Latifur Rahman, who was also head of the CTG, became controversial because of his stay in a government house for a much longer period than stipulated. It has been alleged that the extension of his stay was possible because of his "heroic role" during the 2001 election which brought the 4-party alliance into power with two-thirds majority in the Parliament. But, by and large, caretaker governments of the past performed more or less credibly. There could be no questions raised, ex ante, as none of them could be alleged to have

worn political caps beforehand.

Now the problem looms large in the wake of Hasan's appointment. The 14-party alliance has already aired its negative attitude against him, not in words alone, but also by threatening Dhaka-siege programs the moment he takes over. So, unlike those in the past, a smooth transfer of power to a caretaker taker government is faced with, possibly, an insurmountable resistance. Probably, this will not delay the election even for a while. But are the allegations brought against the next caretaker chief -- e.g. his being a party man who was gifted with an extension as a favour -borne out by facts?

Law Minister Moudud Ahmed is reported to be repeatedly saying that everyone of us votes for some party. Therefore, according to him, really neutral persons are had to find. The fact that everyone casts a vote for a particular party does not go

against the neutrality of the person concerned. The most important planks of neutrality, in this case, are: (a) he/she should not have (or had) any membership of any political party contesting for the election, and (b) he/she should not be gifted with any privilege unavailable for others.

The allegation that Justice Hasan was an activist of BNP -the international secretary of the party -- has never been rejected, either by BNP or by Justice Hasan himself. We, therefore, tend to smell some truth in it. His appointment as an ambassador to Iraq during BNP rule has also not been contested so far. The issue surrounding the fact that the age limit of the chief justice was extended by the government during Justice Hasan's tenure as chief justice has also not been clarified by the vested quarters.

Fuel to the fire of the on-going movement was also added by

Justice Hasan himself. Recently, he visited a shrine at Comilla, allegedly accompanied by BNP stalwarts. One is the present VC of Dhaka University who is known to be close to BNP politics. The other was the local aspirant for a ticket from BNP. It is not an allegation by the opposition, but an item in almost all newspapers. Of course, I never suspected that Mr. Hasan had them with him advertently. But, I am sorry that I suspect his wisdom and judgment in allowing them to be with him on that occasion. Let me straighten the statement: a man of his stature (Justice Hasan) should have well understood that a visit to the shrine with political loyalists might add fuel to the on-going fire. It might bring into question his credibility as a caretaker chief. Therefore, by all indicators, the future caretaker chief could be rightly criticized for not being a neutral man.

In our universities there is a rule that, before one is asked to set or examine a course, one has to declare that none of the examinees are one's close relatives. Examining scripts of, or setting questions for, relatives are taken as serious offences. We can apply the same logic here also. Justice KM Hasan knows it quite well that he was once an activist of the ruling BNP party, an ambassador during that party's term in power, and got a special privilege (only for him) during the tenure of this government. Should his conscience dictate him to take over as a "neutral" person? If I were wearing his shoes I would have declined for the sake of the nation's democracy.

The logic of constitutional continuity -- wrongly interpreted sometimes -- does not always provide credibility. The February 15 election in 1996 was also termed as a logical continuity of the constitution. But the world never recognized that election. The argument that 1996 and 2006 are not the same is also not tenable. In 1996, we had no Kansat and Phulbari episodes, where the full government machinery bowed down to a local upsurge. Nor was there any incident of Shanir Akhra variety, where a ruling party lawmaker had to run for shelter from the people's fury. In 1996, people did

not come out of their houses at midnight protesting shortage of electricity. Remember, all these are merely for access to regular supply of electricity and preservation of national wealth. The elections would, probably, create more havoc than we can think of. And finally, in 1996, Bangladesh was not the corrupt country for a consecutive run of five years, and the incidents of terrorism, extortion, and syndicate business to suck people's blood were not as pervasive as they are now. All these have accumulated, over the years, in peoples' minds.

Taking all this into consideration, we expect that Justice KM Hasan would gift the nation with a way out of the current political impasse by not taking over as caretaker chief. It is up to Justice Hasan to step down or not. But suffice it to say, his rejection might raise his esteem in the public mind more than his acceptance. We do expect good judgment from justices. Although Justice MA Aziz and others have so far frustrated us miserably by their deeds, we are still looking forward to a fine morning.

Abdul Bayes is Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagr University.