WHAT we had over the last 15 years can be described in many ways, e.g., quasi-monarchy, kleptocracy, elected dictatorship, and so on. There is a common thread among these epithets -- viz., a reference to unrepresentative and unaccountable governance that, by definition, precludes democracy.

indeed, we did not have much democracy since 1991. Public participation in governance effectively began and ended on polling day. Parliament remained largely dysfunctional, vital institutions attenuated through political nepotism, corruption flourished, and local government was effectively abolished. only the media provided some opening for public

participation in the decision making process.

Against this background, the recent movement for a quick return to democracy is confusing. After all, one cannot return to a state-of-affairs that was nonexistent in the first place. Yet, if democracy is more than just holding polls at specified intervals, then why are there growing calls for holding elections as soon as possible?

The easy answer is that those who had gained unlawfully, or even unfairly, from the establishment since 1991 yearn for a return to the good old days. To them, reforms of the electoral system, judiciary, political parties, etc. are undesirable because such measures could seriously damage their wealth and influence.

However, this explanation is only applicable to a certain section of the population. There are many decent people who believe that holding elections as soon as possible is the only way to avoid a portentous future that is looming on the horizon.

They are, of course, referring to a full-scale takeover of the government by the men in khaki. Such fears are not without foundation, though apparently receding.

The recent botched-up attempts to render the country Begum-Free put the spotlight on the question of who is really in charge. it follows that if the topjob in an un-elected regime is up for grabs, then the army is a clear candidate. Moreover, a strong rumour about the appearance of a new political party that is backed

by the army has fuelled such fears even further.

So, according to some, by holding elections at the earliest opportunity the danger of an army takeover can effectively be neutralised. in the process of rushing through the elections many vital reforms would have to be compromised, but this second-best solution is still preferable to being under martial law, or under an army-backed political party larded with opportunist politicians and spineless members of the civil society.

Somehow this line of reasoning seems to be motivated largely by panic. The evidence notwithstanding, what is really the chance of an army takeover?

When the army top brass speak of a new kind of democracy, one is of course immediately taken back

to the days of despots such as Ayub Khan and H.M. Ershad. Yet, such a journey into history should also remind us that the world is very different now.

First, the Bangladesh army, ironically due to radical changes in the last two decades, is now well-trained and professional. Respect for civilian law is ingrained in the training curriculum.

Second, international tolerance for army rule, as seen during the Cold War, no longer applies. These days, a more case by case approach seems to be in vogue.

Third, the Bangladesh army has also developed an international perspective through its UN peacekeeping role. it would be rather difficult to carry the mantle of peace and democracy globally if they are viewed as tyrants in their

own backyard.

Fourth, this army appears amenable to reasoning and, of course, pressure. After protests from civil society, the slum eviction programme has been shelved. Most notably, the drama regarding the exile of the Begums seems to have gone into intermission.

in essence, this army gives the impression of being mindful of public opinion. But is it really so? Why not test the waters? Let there be a documented set of expectations from civil society, and evaluate how the army responds to it. its key elements could be as follows:

• There must be no ambiguity that the principal executive authority of Bangladesh rests with the head of the interim government.

• Army involvement in civilian life

must be authorised by the interim government.

• The army must return to its barracks if the interim government wishes so.

• Members of the armed forces

cannot directly or indirectly promote any political party.

• Members of the armed forces

must wait at least three years (after retiring) before joining politics.

The longevity of the interim government largely depends on how comfortable the public is with the nature of its involvement with the army. in this light, it is incumbent upon the army to convince us that its intentions are honourable and transparent.

This government has performed miracles. While of late, pertinent questions have been raised about

its competence, there can be no doubt that it is run by persons with honourable intentions. Given the chance, it should be able to complete its stated agenda of ensuring free and fair elections, and cultivating a suitable environment for healthy politics.

Most of us want reforms within the existing political parties so that clean and competent people take centre stage. Many of us dream of a forward-looking and visionary third force in politics. This government has the capacity to deliver, but the real worry is that questions about its associates in uniform might jeopardise the entire operation.

Defenders of Bangladesh, how honourable are your intentions?

The writer is a businessman.