Free thinking, fair-minded, evenhanded people recognise and realise that the government, despite a whopping 2/3rd majority, has failed to provide stable rule and basic comfort and services to the people. The colossal and abysmal failure to control the horrendous law and order situation, put a lid on corruption and reign in the escalating prices of essentials are living testimony to the government's dreadful record in running the affairs of the state or inability to live up to the assorted pious election pledges. But would a change of government in the middle of a constitutionally designated tenure make things any better?

The answer would seem to be an authentic and emphatic 'unlikely,' especially being cognisant of the likely viable alternative. The main opposition party, leading the April 30 bandwagon, formed the major component of the immediate past government. The performance of the last government in terms of crime control, corruption attenuation and providing essential comfort, care and services to the general public, the commoners hoi-polloi, was nothing to write home about. One could point to the generally stable prices of the staples but you would mainly have to stop at the price of rice. The prices of other items did show fluctuations, perhaps not the wild oscillation and gyrations we are currently experiencing. By and large, this would have to be in the plus column of the previous government.

In our visceral disgust for the performance of the government, we tend to overlook the macroeconomic accomplishments of the current administration. The steady and significant rise in foreign exchange reserve, increase in export and reduction in interest rate, added to precipitous plunge in deceitful means in public exams, prohibition of polythene bags and two-stroke engines, are no puny achievements. If you carefully evaluate the succeeding regimes, there perhaps isn't much to choose between the two. Given that the last regime was not any better than the current one, why would people bother to bring down an elected government in favour of a party that has not much to offer except vacuous rhetoric, empty promises, and dream of rosy prospect with milk and honey, something that all past AL regimes did without bothering to deliver the goodies or living up to the pledges or pompous utterances?

All this is not to condone the atrocious attitude and behaviour of the current ruling clique. It has failed miserably in most counts by any objective criteria. It has a bloated Cabinet, with allegedly numerous incompetent and crooked Ministers, inept administration and corrupt administrators. The nexus with criminals and terrorists may not be as high-level or high profile as in the past regime, but it is prevalent, insidious and ubiquitous. The government has made a hash of most election pledges. It has severely dented the trust and confidence of the general public.

In effect, the existing situation is most unpleasant. The past is equally sordid and insipid. The future, at least in the short term, does not seem to be shaping up any better. The available options and alternatives all seem pretty grubby and awful. It seems like a clear case of Hobson's choice between two loutish, vicious, bungling, blundering, power-hungry and repressive regimes, with no concern or care for the wellbeing of the people or the country. The unfortunate thing is not simply that the successive governments have failed the people and the country; it is not only that all regimes made atrocious claims of overblown phony success with puny little actual achievements; it is not even the horrid past and distasteful present. The greatest misfortune for Bangladesh is there is no hope for a better future and no realistic expectations that things will get any better anytime soon. There just does not seem a way out of the current mess.

Omar Khasru is an employee at a private university