Didn't the party leaders understand the difference between demanding early elections and wanting to "topple" a government? The former is well within the rights given in a parliamentary democracy. The latter is quite out of bounds within the framework of constitutional governance. Didn't the AL understand that however disgruntled people were about BNP's performance they would become frightened with the talk of 'toppling' the government and its attending possibility of destabilisation?

Ershad's toppling may be cited as an example. But his was a government that came through a coup and as such he was toppled by a people's movement. Elected governments are not of that category and hence cannot be removed by any other means but another election. Do we need to teach this to the AL, the very party that has to its credit such a huge legacy of struggle for democracy?

The supreme irony of the AL is that its present embarrassment was so very unnecessary. Here was the BNP making one unbelievable blunder after another in connection with the Baddruddozza affair. The former President was being harassed and intimidated in the crudest of manners and those who came to his support were repressed in a style resembling fascist tactics. This resulted in widespread condemnation in the media and revulsion in the public. A clever opposition would have waited on the sidelines and allowed the government to expose itself more and more and take home the resultant political dividend.

But not so were our impatient-for-power opposition party and its ever clever general secretary. In his infinite wisdom he decided that enough is enough and declared that an elected government cannot be allowed to continue after April 30, 2004, more than two years before the expiry of its term. This paper, along with others, repeatedly pointed out that it is the right of every opposition to demand an early election, but no democratic opposition anywhere in the world has the right to plan the toppling of an elected government, other than methods permitted in the constitution. The very vocabulary was undemocratic, unconstitutional and unacceptable, as such, to a society where we have chosen election as the method of changing our government.

Our counsel had absolutely no effect on the AL -- they usually don't, as our politicians are all wise and all-knowing -- and the rhetoric of 'toppling' the government continued. While we vigorously criticise the government for its excesses, especially for harassing the powerless and the poor, we have to admit that when the 'declared' target of the opposition was to TOPPLE the government, it became the government's duty to crush it. In doing so, it showed a side of its character that has greatly disappointed us about how a government can bend, abuse and even break rules to gain its own way. (We will write about it separately).

Jalil's deadline and the fact that he was able to drag his whole party into it say a lot about how our big political parties work. We find it hard to believe that the 'deadline' policy emerged from any collective thinking. In all probability it came up as a passing comment and was casually made public. Once said it suddenly became a policy and had to be implemented. We have asked many senior AL leaders and all of them repeatedly told this writer that they knew nothing as to how, why and when the 'deadline' issue was decided upon. There was never a threadbare discussion on its wisdom and practicability. Once it was made public by Jalil and the word was out that its has the 'blessings' (as nothing happens in our big parties without such blessings) of the party chief, it then became the 'duty' of everyone to implement it.

It is the total dictatorship that runs within our big political parties that must now come into question. It is our belief that this mockery of a political programme of 'toppling' a government (as against demanding early elections) could not have happened if there was some democratic discourse within the party.

The Awami League's 'deadline' programme was a fiasco and has made the party quite ridiculous. It must now seriously assess its present position and think carefully about its future moves. Under no circumstances will it be good for our democracy if the AL is greatly weakened and demoralised. Conversely, it will not also be good if the party does not subject itself to a stringent self-criticism, sparing none. Though there is no tradition of critical self-assessment within our parties, it is as good a time as any to start.

As strong proponents of democracy in our country, we want a strong opposition. But we also want a responsible, effective opposition. The incredible failure of the government to run the country, its refusal to address high-level corruption within its ranks -- some very close to the heart --, its propensity to use and abuse state power to crush legitimate dissent and its patronisation of armed criminals, all testify to the fundamental need for an effective opposition to counterbalance such a situation. We want a powerful, as against a power-hungry, opposition. The challenge before the AL now is to fulfil that role and it can immediately concentrate on two issues -- corruption and the arms haul in Chittagong. It can also demand a debate in parliament on both, especially on the arms cache, and force the government to come clean on this greatest security threat to our country. This is a good point for the opposition to start serving the people of this country.