THERE is no denying that, as of now, Bangladesh does not have a representative government. The interesting and sustaining dimension of the current scenario, however, is that the nonrepresentative character has not yet posed any functional problem for the governing team, nor is there any deficit in the popular base of the guardians.

In fact, it would not be an overstatement to say that the overwhelming majority of the population, including the ever-silent majority, wishes well of the present government.

Some say that we are living in a strange and unsettling environment. There was a time when many otherwise stable people used to be in tears at the sight of our politicians going to jail, but now we have reached a point when the discomfiture of political heavyweights is a gleeful sight.

The malfeasance and misfeasance of many of our popular leaders, now interned, make diabolical reading. The present sense of relief of our people poses a very disturbing question, as to whether a non-elected government is capable of meeting the expectations of a democratic polity.

In other words, can the felt needs of democracy be fulfilled under a nonelected dispensation? Maybe for a limited period?

Many amongst the so-called politically sensitive segment of the society are finding it difficult to accli-

matize to the extended nonrepresentative arrangement. In fact, the leading politicians of the major political parties have, time and again, impressed upon the necessity of holding early polls.

While sharing their concern for democracy, one cannot but point out that the extended presence of the present non-representative outfit has been caused by the dangerously autocratic and irresponsible utterances and acts of our seasoned democrats.

If the avowed objective of democracy is to build an orderly society where the rule of law shall be supreme then we have to, unfortunately, admit that during the last fifteen years of democratic rule we have not witnessed any admirable precedent in this regard.

It has to be admitted that the foundation of a democratic society depends largely on the resilience and dynamism of some basic state institutions, particularly the financial and regulatory ones.

Those regulatory institutions, performing as corrective outfits, assist in strengthening and stabilizing the democratic values. In so doing, they keep the excesses of the overbearing executive in check and promote the dual functions of enforcement and observance of law, which is so very characteristic of a democratic polity.

In Bangladesh, unfortunately, the activities of the aforementioned institutions have not been felt. In

administrative parlance, we have ventured to nourish democracy while behaving like middle-age feudals.

Being temperamentally autocratic, our efforts to eulogize the virtues of democracy have bordered on hypocrisy of a pathetic dimension. The political scene has been witness to some of the worst hypocritical enactments.

The autocratic proclivities of our democrats were so pervasive that demands were voiced to democratize the democratic setup. One might read some apparent contradiction in such an observation, but the fact remains that the wishes and whims of the supreme leaders were considered as the last words, and the establishment's principal objective was to preserve and further theinterests of the ruling family.

The apprehension of bigwigs of recent times, the undue and undesirable interference in financial decision making with a view to extracting private profit at the cost of public interest, and the conspicuous illegal actions and arrogance of the chief executive have dirtied the contours of a democratic polity.

Government offices have been utilized as launching grounds for promoting the business interests of powerful individuals. The nation had to bear the ignominy of witnessing unbearable moral turpitude in the highest executive office. These complaints are not imaginary, as the same have been made public by persons who were privy to top secrets and shady deals in high places.

Without doubt, the body politic has been smeared by a lot of dirt, and the contribution of politicians toward this has been considerable. Quite a number of them have been instrumental in creating the condemnable contour of politics, and it appeared that there would be no end to their malevolence.

Democracy was, however, salvaged through the courtesy of the armed forces. Whether one would call it an irony or the paradox of Bangladeshi polity, one has to live with such opposing pulls and contradictory realities.

The fact of life is that while destruction demands no application of mind, it takes years to build upon. If we are cognizant of this truism we cannot expect big changes overnight from the present interim non-elected government.

If the greatness of democratic governance has been limited to the patronization of life-size irregularities and incongruities, then reversion to an orderly dispensation would require patience.

Surely, we do not want to go back to the pre-January 11th scenario. Therefore, if the element of irreversibility of an expectant polity's aspiration is taken into view, the actions of the present government, in the light of the doctrine of necessity, will be appreciated by all right thinking citizens.

Some are of the opinion that our politicians do not clearly spell out the desires of our polity, or they are not

aware of those. Another view is that they do not want to speak it out. In hindsight, it appears that if Ershad, the convicted politician, was able to contest the polls then the election slated for January 22nd would have been held, either peacefully and fairly or amidst widespread clashes.

Shall we then presume that the reforms demanded by political parties were merely for public consumption, and the same were meant only to validate a movement? It might appear that our politicians really did not want meaningful institutional reforms, but in the altered scenario, while they cannot dispute the justification of reforms, they are not willing to give a longer interval for the task to be carried out. Herein, one sees the opposing realities of our body politic.

In order to ensure democratization, reforms are inevitable but, without doubt, time-consuming. A pertinent question in this regard is whether there is merit behind the demand to somehow hurriedly do some patchwork and announce the election schedule.

Such a question becomes relevant when expert opinion says that to prepare an acceptable nationwide voter list, at least one year is necessary. During this time the preliminary reforms of the Election Commission and the Anti-corruption Commission may perhaps be undertaken.

The reform and rejuvenation efforts by the Anti-corruption Commission are likely to largely focus on the big-time corrupt ele-

ments who need to be brought under the law to free the electoral process from the clutches of muscle and black money.

Some quarters doubt whether the prevention of corruption is wholeheartedly supported by mainstream political parties. Such doubts creep in because, even when many highly corrupt suspects have not been apprehended, there are already complaints of harassment of innocent persons. Implicit in such accusation is a belief that we in Bangladesh live in a very lawful society where the liberty of individuals is held sacrosanct.

Many of us are oblivious of the fact that, in the recent past during a political regime, at least fifty innocent persons were done to death in government custody in the course of the so-called "operation clean heart."

In the most blatantly illegal manner, hundreds of so-called suspects have been killed in the much-maligned "crossfire." The question is, if such patently illegal and extrajudicial killings occurring during a supposedly democratic regime have not shaken our conscience, then why is there so much fuss now about the directive to submit wealth statements, and issuance of preventive detention orders with a view to ensuring investigation?

There is no doubt that one illegal act does not validate another irregular or illegal action. However, one has to admit that when a political government clearly shows the thumb to the due process of law and patronizes corruption, and sustains the corrupt in the society, then it deliberately places many hurdles in the way of an anti-corruption drive.

In other words, if there is no time to collect evidence, how can allegations of corruption be proved in the court of law; and to arrest on the basis of credible suspicion is an internationally recognized procedure.

However, our problem boils down to the fact that the corrupt elements who were politically powerful and

influential in the recent past did not allow any enquiry into their misdeeds. In order to lodge a first information report on corruption, one would require intensive prior enquiry. The query is, did a favourable environment exist during the political regime? Nobody has forgotten that the much-vaunted AntiCorruption Commission became a joke soon after its creation.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that in order to have the benefit of the laws and rules of a civilized society, we have to first acclimatize ourselves to the culture of a lawful society. The relevant question is whether we had been honest in establishing the rule of law.

There are good grounds to believe that we have been narrowminded, partial and myopic in this regard and, therefore, we must not entertain any illusion that, overnight, an omnipotent entity with omniscient disposition has dawned with a prescription for curing all ills. If there is a storm in our body politic now there could be some indiscretion at places. Such indiscretions need to be looked into for providing the necessary relief.

It needs to be kept in mind that democratic dispensation demands clearing efforts in many other sectors of public activity. For example, the Public Service Commission needs to be free from blemishes, and has to earn the confidence of the people.

It is no secret that unpardonable criminal acts have been committed in this constitutional body. The tears and cries of genuinely deprived candidates have not moved the occupiers of this august body. The appointment of 19 Judges to the apex Court had given rise to serious concern. Such uneasiness needs to be resolved and reconciled.

We would do well to bear in mind that the repeated reminders of creating a level playing field to ensure free and fair polls cannot be treated in isolation. The collective impact of the actions and reactions

of different parts of the government and society will assist in creating an election-friendly environment. The handing over of responsibilities after some work at one end, without doing the needful at the other end, might prove counterproductive.

By now we have been able to have some idea about the depth and extent of corruption and irregularities in our society. This should lead us to believe that consecutive fair polls might succeed in fostering an anti-corruption environment and positive consciousness, thereby helping to build a healthy society.

The present reality is that disobedience of law has become a way of life and also a sustaining factor. The officials of the republic have been corroded by a servile mentality. The general people have nearly lost sight of the inviolability of their constitutional rights, while the political leaders feel comfortable in behaving like feudal lords.

Under circumstances as above it would take time to normalize, but a welfare oriented government should be able to foretell how much time will be necessary to do that, and it would be prudent to open up while the going is good.

An honest government has the strength of character and the courage of conviction, and time now demands toughness. As the saying goes, "when the going gets tough, the tough gets going." Without doubt, we are passing through hard times, but this is also the time to restore legitimacy and propriety. The people are ready to wait because they want to be delivered from the cumulative tyranny of pseudo-democrats.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a DS columnist.