IT is fashionable to talk about the discerning behaviour of the electorate, and certainly a strong case may be made about collective rationality of the Bangladeshi electorate. In 1991, the populace rejected the politics of vengeance propounded by the AL and ushered in the BNP that had made a commendable contribution to ending a decade of dictatorship.

Yet five years later the same party resisted eminently reasonable demands for electoral reform and was replaced from power by the AL -- being a champion of the concept of caretaker administration. And by the time of the last election, the quality of governance had deteriorated to such an extent that the electorate tolerated an alliance with an anti-Liberation element to boot out the AL.

Thus the electorate has faithfully returned one or other of the two parties to the highest echelons of power. Yet the reciprocation of these two parties to this allegiance has been

disdainful to say the least. Broken promises, inefficient deliverance, and above all, dishonesty have sullied the contract with the voters.

While the two-horse race in Bangladesh politics may reasonably be attributed to collective rationality of the electorate, it would be a mistake to completely rule out voter myopia. Indeed, the real tragedy could lie in a voting psychology that cannot envision a future without one or the other party as their master.

So, if the past is any guide, in a few months the electorate will once again line up in droves to choose between what it perceives to be a binary option. Then comes hope followed by disillusionment, and the cycle goes on.

Indeed, why should the eventual outcome be any different if the electorate keeps repeating its old habits? The voting behaviour hitherto is a case in point. Voting is largely along party lines, regardless of the quality of the candidate. Unsurprisingly, therefore, politicians with track-records strewn with

inefficiency and corruption have repeatedly been granted opportunities for redemption.

In some cases this impunity has extended to persons with criminal records. So, when the election symbol is the overriding factor where is the incentive for political parties to focus on the quality of the candidate? And is it really a cause for surprise if below-par politicians fail to deliver good governance?

Voting along party lines, irrespective of the quality of the candidate, can and does produce disastrous governance. It might, however, be argued that in Bangladesh institutional deficiencies have contributed more to poor governance than the quality of candidates. Undoubtedly, much needs to be done in making Parliament effective, devolving power to local levels, establishing an independent judiciary, fostering intra-party democracy, and so on. Yet it is quality of the candidate that invigorates the impetus for systemic change and determines whether a good system is utilised to its full

potential.

Thus the first step in redressing the problem of bad governance is altering how one arrives at a voting decision. Is the voter likely to pay more notice to the quality of the candidate this time around?

There is in fact cause for optimism. In a masterful essay, Kamran Chowdhury (DS October 7) reports that as much as 53% of the electorate remains undecided at this point as to how they would eventually vote. He notes: "For the first time in our history, with elections less than six months away, more than half of the voters are undecided ... This is indeed an indictment of our political parties."

Does this ambivalence reflect growing levels of voter sophistication? There are compelling reasons to believe so: First, for many, 2007 would be the fourth election since 1991. By now this section of the electorate should have become immunised against outlandish manifesto pledges and mindful of the actual performance that has been delivered.

Second, circulation numbers for the print media have risen phenomenally, signifying a better educated electorate. Third, private TV channels have provided access to unbiased reporting and analysis -- a welcome respite from the official propaganda of BTV. Fourth, foreign TV channels have increased the understanding of the electorate as to the practice of democracy elsewhere in the world.

Still, one should be wary of reading too much into surveys conducted six months before an election. Voters all over the world have a tendency to over-dramatise their disenchantment at this stage. The performance of BNP has not measured up to expectations, while the "Elect us and all will be well" message of the AL echoes a familiar hollow ring. It is therefore understandable why such a large section of the electorate has not stated a preference for either.

How will this ambivalence manifest itself on voting day? Will the 53% abstain, destroy their voting

slips, vote for a third party, or capitulate and vote along party-lines? It is the last element that is damaging for Bangladesh. It therefore is of utmost importance that this group believes that it has a choice -- a choice of voting that is based on the quality of the candidate and not merely the election symbol.

A civil society movement for electing good candidates is well underway. This endeavour is to be welcomed with enthusiasm by the civic minded. It is now clear that this movement has a very large and malleable target audience -- 53% of undecided voters at which to aim its efforts.

It has often been said wisely: "In a democracy people get what they deserve." It is high-time that we prove to ourselves that we deserve better.

Syed S Kaiser Kabir is a businessman.