Unconstitutional power capture is contrary to democracy and civilised norms and values, hence it is unacceptable. In a democracy, the people's verdict is supreme and any non-compliance with that is an offence. Elections are the only means of power transfer in modern democracy. Those, therefore, need to be sufficiently fair to correcdy reflect the people's verdict. Fair elections are those elections that are transparent, participatory, free and peaceful.

Not long ago, however, military coups d'etat were a regular way of power transfer in most "Third World” countries. Since the beginning of the last century, the world witnessed around 300 major coups d'etat or similar attempts, an overwhelming majority of which took place in countries with weak democratic institutions and weak or non-existent civil society organisations. Over whelming share (68%) of the coups d'etat or coup attempts took place during the second half of the last century. The sixties of the last century bear the "credit" of largest number of unconstitutional power capture by the military.

The long-lasting Cold War determined the course of global politics and the politics of individual nation-states, and thus had colossal impact on the coups d'etat in different countries. The US foreign policy of 1960 to 1990 was directly supportive of military coups d'etat in countries that "concerned US national interest," or that remained or faced the "danger" of going under the "communist umbrella." No different was the Soviet foreign policy. The globe was divided into two confronting camps wrestling to increase and strengthen their spheres of influence.

The first coup d'etat of the last century, "The Majski Prevrat," or "The May Overthrow," took place in 1903 in Serbia, in which Alexander-I was killed. The killing was organised by the Black Hand group of the military officers led by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic. Ironically, almost all of these unlawful acts happened either in the Third World countries or in the poorest countries of the west. Encouragingly, most of the organisers of the coups d'etat were rejected by the people at the end of the day and have remained in history as villains. No less number of democratic leaders emerged during the same period, who led their nations to independence, democracy, equality and progress. They have remained as heroes forever in world history. History makes judicious evaluation at the end of the day, and there is no escape from that.

Pakistan and Bangladesh are branded as the "champions" of unconstitutional power capture in the subcontinent. TVvelve of the 24 year Pak-Bangla tainted "marriage" suffered direct military rule, while most of the remaining period democracy in that state creawled. Military rule with its hereditary perversity returned to Bangladesh after brutal killings of 1975 and continued for more than 15 years.

Although two major regimes ruled the country during those years, they had to face numerous coups and coup attempts. Ziaur Rahman's regime alone experienced more than 20 coup attempts during its six-year tenure. The general was killed following another coup d'etat in 1981 which, after a short break, ushered in General Ershad's almost decade-long military rule. Both Zia and Ershad followed the footsteps of their Pakistani predecessors in consolidating their power. Ershad's regime suffered humiliating retreat in December 1990 following mass anti-autocratic upsurge that "added yet another glorious chapter to the history of democratic movements in this country."

Empirical evidences and results based evaluations demonstrate inability of the military regimes to efficiently handle multifaceted state affairs, resolve complex socioeconomic problems, meet people's demands and address people's aspirations, and thereby ensure sustainable economic growth and upheld human rights. In some of my recent articles, I tried to show interrelationships among democracy, governance and development; "Democracy promotes freedom of thought, choice, participation and action...enhances good governance and....creates favourable environment for development" which autocracy fails to do (Z. Alam. "Democracy and Development." The Daily Star. 01.07.2011).

The growth rate in Bangladesh was 4% during the 15-year military regimes against 7% during pre-military regimes and 5 to 6.7% during post-military regimes. Autocratic rule destroys democratic institutions of the state or inflicts unprecedented damage to those, pollutes the political system to the extent that it is wrecked, and ushers into politics non-political elements and even criminals who are least acquainted or not at all acquainted with the norms and values of politics and people's aspirations simply to consolidate their illegally captured state power and stick to that. This dislocates the achievements of the nation and disrupts socio-political and economic growth of the country, leaving it at the verge of destruction.

Any attempt to disrupt the democratic process in the country, therefore should vehemently be opposed by all democratic forces. Bangladesh, like all other countries around the globe, needs sustainable democratic rule for attaining the pace of development needed for poverty eradication via good governance.

The writer is President, Governance and Rights Centre (GRC).

E-mail: zalamlll@yahoo.com