Chief Election Commissioner's (CEC) "getting-to-know" meetings with all political parties has apparently flopped. The CEC, however, observed that trust, understanding, and tolerance are absent among the politicians. He was dismayed to discover that there are two or three factions in each party and that they do not want to sit together. The CEC was surprised that even the partners of the coalition government set an example of such a discord. We are only surprised to see the naivete of the CEC and his lack of knowledge about the nature of our politicians. That is why the country needs no nonsense constitutional reforms in both the EC and the Caretaker Government (CTG).

Prior to attempting for any consensus reform package for the EC and the CTG, the nation may be well served by participating in the proposed convention scheduled for November 2005 to be organized by the so-called "Tuesday Group of Diplomats" (TGD), and make it look like a home initiated event. Unfortunately, the TGD initiative for such a convention has already caused alarm among BNP stalwarts, for reasons not easily discernible. The TGDs, representing the wealthiest democracies of the world, have planned to invite people from all walks of national activities and possibly some foreign guests, totaling nearly 400 or so participants. On paper, it looks, prima facie, a grand idea -- an exercise of academic and intellectual interest as well as a forum for harvesting innovative ideas while divesting those that seem outmoded and unworkable. The format should be such that the diplomats must keep their lips sealed and follow diplomatic norms.

The TGDs held such a conference prior to the general elections of 2001. One wonders why this time the Foreign Minister became so acerbic in his reaction against it. Last time, prior to 2001 elections, did the FM react the same way and rebuke the Tuesday Group against holding such a convention on the soil of a sovereign nation? Were there any topics of conference presentation by any foreign guests or diplomats which have intruded into our sovereign constitution? Were there any derogatory comments or remarks made by any foreign diplomats on any provisions of our constitution? Now about the proposed November 2005 convention: did the Tuesday Group publish or distribute any booklets and the nature and topics of discussions in the proposed convention? Have they placed any demand or recommendations about the modus operandi of reforming the Election Commission (EC) and the Caretaker Government? If they did, then they should be asked to leave our soil immediately. Otherwise, what the big fuss is about?

We have no reason to believe that the TGD would be a player with our intensely partisan and acrimonious political playground, and risk our market for their goods and our goodwill. Many of us living in their countries (which many of us also call home) educate our children in schools, colleges, and universities, run businesses and corporations, provide medical services, work as attorneys in courts, and discover patents in science, medicine and technology. When it comes to intelligence and ingenuity, we stand at least on equal term and on equal footing on any area of human endeavour. So, they would not act savior-faire to tell us what to do? But there is no harm to listen to what they may have to say.

We live in an ever expanding Internet era and ever opening "global village." Foreign experts can write a book about our system of government, debate in their academic institutions or in international forums on our democratic process and constitutional matters and we learn from them or we, in our homeland participate in a convention for crisscrossing and ventilating provoking thoughts and ideas. Isn't the latter one preferable? Hopefully, good ideas will percolate through the process for our serious review and further discourse. Nothing else, we still win by having an academic exercise and thus a tradition will set afoot.

We solicit foreign expertise in all areas in which we lack experience and skill. All nations do that. So, what's wrong in holding a convention of "think tank and academic in nature" devoted to making democracy work where the participant will be our own citizens, and may be some foreign guests? If nothing else, this offers a venue where "current tangles of no talking between ruling party leaders and opposition politicians" may create a nexus leading into building a bridge of trust and mutual appreciation which does not exist now. When we look at the growing generations of politicians grooming in college and university campuses, there is not much hope that they will display many democratic values and the rule of law as their times are advancing. So, the onus is on the older statesmen to harvest the few openings that come along to steer the country to a stable democracy and frictionless economic prosperity.

The CTG concept, although home-grown, is a unique feature in our evolving democracy innovated to overcome the problem of questionable integrity of our politicians and for holding a credible free and fair poll for orderly transfer of power. Unfortunately CTG's overstepped activism under Chief Justice Latifur Rahman prior to the election of 2001 culminated in the current waves of controversy about "how mixing judiciary and politics" can be counterproductive to anotherwise well conceived idea. Further, because of such a provision in the constitution, people of lesser integrity are already getting appointments in higher judiciary on the basis of their political lineage and loyalty than ever before.

Thus the 14-Combined Opposit-ion Parties Alliance's (COPA) demand for Chief Advisor to the CTG from a wider circles through dialogue and consensus does not seem to have been born out of a self-aggrandising prophesy. The COPA seems to sincerely spare the higher judiciary from the controversy of politicising it. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's 12-point directives for separation of judiciary, appointing of judges on the basis of honesty, efficiency and talent, and freeing the judiciary from politicisations. If the Four Party Alliance (FPA) continues to express their nonchalance to the proposals and the stalemate continues unresolved, the following "no nonsense" mechanism to form a "Non Political Council" (NPC) to appoint the Chief Advisor and other members to the interim CTG may be added to the streams of other competing thoughts.

The formation of NPC is necessary (but not sufficient) to produce a panel of three nominees for a position of the Chief Advisor and 20 nominees for 10 advisory positions in the CTG. The members of the NPC and the nominees for Chief Advisor and 10 other advisors must be politically neutral with an impeccable record of unblemished integrity and character (e.g no criminal record, no back money holder, and no loan defaulter etc.). Political parties which submit nominees with false information, if detected, will lose their representation in the NPC.

The "NPC" may be composed of 100 (or some other magic number) Bangladesh citizens to be nominated by political parties based on the percentage of votes received in the 2001 election. For example: a party, which received at least 1.0 percent of popular votes regardless of its representation in the Parliament, would be assigned to nominate one member in the NPC; a party receiving 3.79 percent votes will nominate 4; another party receiving 27.49 percent will nominate 27. Any party which received less than 1.0 percent popular votes will have no representation.

If one wishes to make the selection of NPC members somewhat more participatory, one may ask each eligible political party to nominate two candidates for each membership position in the NPC for review and consideration by other parties. In other words, an opposition party, say X, which received 15.21 percent popular votes will submit a list of 30 eligible neutral persons for acceptance by the ruling FPA of which 15 will be selected by the ruling FPA for party X's representation in the NPC. For acceptance of FPA's nominees, the same procedure would apply except that the opposition parties would act as a combined group.

Once the NPC is formed, its members will elect a panel of 3 nominees for a position of Chief Advisor and 20 nominees for 10 Advisors to the CTG. They many consider names from within and outside the NPC. If they fail to finalise a panel by consensus, a "two thirds majority rule" would automatically be invoked. The NPC would then present the panel to the President, who would ask the PM and the Parliament's opposition leader (POL) to give him two choices out of three for the CTG Chief.

The President will appoint the person as the Chief Advisor common to the selections by the PM and POL. The Chief of CTG then will fill in the 10 positions of advisors by consulting the PM and the POL by a similar procedure adopted by the President to appoint the CTG Chief Advisor. The mechanism must then be passed by the parliament as an amendment to the constitution thus fulfilling both the necessary and sufficient conditions to reform a Caretaker Government.

The longer the FPA delays the process of negotiating a consensus reform package, the thornier it will be to accept the inevitable. All ideas, good or not so good, wherever they emanate from, should be looked into dispassionately and the good ones must be harnessed. This underscores what freedom of choice and thought in a democratic process are all about.

The authors are, respectively, Professor of Economics, Eastern Michigan University and former Secretary to the Government of Bangladesh.