People from all walks of life seriously doubt whether any free and fair election can be held under the present circumstances. How did we reach this impasse? If our immediate neighbour West Bengal or civil-war devastated Sri Lanka could hold free and credible elections, why can't we? Why did we fight for our independence then?

Every nation has a raison d'etre for its independence. United States fought for its independence to uphold the principle of "no taxation without representation." India's reason for seeking independence from the British was "to be free from the colonial and alien rule" and Pakistan's was "to create a homeland for the Indian Muslims."

What was our reason for fighting for our independence? I believe that it was to establish our democratic rights. When present Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan, the Bengalis, who had constituted the majority, had expected that they would be able to determine their own destiny in Pakistan without any domination. Unfortunately, all they received from the Pakistani rulers was total subjugation and deprivation perpetuated on the basis of authoritarian rule by the minority.

The Bengalis thus wanted to protect their political and economic rights, and maintain their linguistic and cultural identity. Bangabandhu gave them the six-point formula to protect their autonomy. The Bengalis gave him overwhelming support at the national parliamentary elections in 1970, the first time that they had the opportunity to exercise their democratic right of "one man, one vote" in Pakistan. The Pakistani military authorities trampled our democratic aspirations and unleashed a war on us. We took up arms and freed our country. It was not a secessionist movement. It was a movement to establish our democratic rights.

It is true that we did not inherit sound democratic institutions from years of Pakistani experience. However, what have we done during the past three and a half decades to establish those institutions? After all, democracy is a political process that needs constant nurturing and care; and even if we did not inherit any sound democratic institution, we could have worked for making some for ourselves.

No constitutional expert can give us a magic formula for all times. Even the mature democracies like British, French or American systems require constant adjustments to meet the changes of time. Some analysts have compared practicing democracy to driving old cars. In both cases, one needs patience and tolerance. Have we shown these two virtues in our national life?

During the past thirty-five years, ghosts of Pakistan have haunted us. Soon after our independence, one of our ranking freedom fighter civil servants had visited Washington DC and wanted to meet Senator Frank Church. The senator, one of our strongest supporters in the US Congress, had received us cordially in his office. Among other things, he had expressed his apprehension that in the absence of sound democratic structure, Bangladesh could come under military regimes. My senior colleague had confidently told him that the people of Bangladesh, who had defeated the mighty Pakistani military, would thwart any such attempt in fifteen minutes. How wrong he was! Bangladeshis had to suffer military and quasi-military regimes for long fifteen years.

The military rulers, who came to power after Bangabandhu's tragic assassination, tried to legitimize their rules through sham elections. New parties were formed which basically included defectors from different political parties and retired civil/army officials and professionals of different categories. The entire election process lost all credibility. What is most tragic is that our judiciary, bureaucracy, armed forces and in fact, all national institutions were politicized to legitimize their authoritarian rules.

Eventually people's power triumphed over the autocratic powers in 1991 and democracy was restored in Bangladesh. The then chief justice of Bangladesh took over as the acting president and conducted the national elections under a neutral interim government. It seems our ruling parties forget that holding of free and fair election is the beginning of the democratic process. It is the means to an end, not an end in itself.

Once the election is over, democracy faces the toughest test: how to incorporate the voice of minority. "The rule of the majority is not democracy," we were taught at the Civil Service Academy in late sixties. Our teacher Dr. Tareque Siddiqui had explained the point very well by citing examples of various authoritarian regimes which had come to power through elections but had lost legitimacy subsequently.

So when our ruling party adopts the "winner take all" policy they, in no time, disenfranchise a large segment of the electorate. It is indeed amazing how a ruling coalition, after getting two-third majority in elections, can lose public support within six months due to this suicidal policy.

If we look closely at the results of our last parliamentary election we may find the answer. At the last elections, the victorious four-party alliance together had gotten 46.5 % of popular votes while the main opposition Awami League had secured 40.1% votes. Since we do not have any proportionate seat dividing system, the ruling coalition got 216 out of 300 seats in the parliament against 63 bagged by Awami League.

It was a landslide victory; but the picture changed as soon as the ruling alliance did not take the opposition parties into confidence. Within a short period of time, the opposition parties, taking advantage of growing public disenchantment, turned the tables against them. From that moment, desperation has set in and the ruling alliance has been trying to perpetuate their rule by any means.

One can understand how socio-economic divides can alienate rulers from the ruled in various countries. But it should not happen in Bangladesh which is one of the most homogenized countries in the world, linguistically, ethnically, and socio-economically.

Bangla is our language and ethnically, we are one nation. There is no landed aristocracy or caste system, and the society is pretty much egalitarian. The Bengalis are known to be tolerant and, historically, there were very few instances of communal tensions or riots. Unfortunately, through excessive politicization, our leadership has created this highly polarized society.

The parliament should be the focal point for all discussions. In established democracies, the ruling party consults all parties in the opposition and gets them fully involved in the decision-making process. In our case, the ruling party does not allow members of the opposition to express their viewpoint in the parliament. This prevents the parliament from adopting a consensus on any course of action. The Speaker of the parliament, once elected, should be neutral and the consensus builder. But in our case, the Speaker has been accused of partisanship and, as a result, the entire parliamentary deliberation is turned into a farce.

In the absence of any parliamentary control, the democratically elected government turns autocratic. Party interests very often supercede national interest. Consequently, once there is change of government, all decisions taken by a government, from major to minor, are opened for fresh discussions. After 35 years, we have not taken any final decision on basic issues like office hours, weekly holidays, retirement age and national holidays. All decisions have been based on expediency and ad-hocism.

Now let me turn to the next election. The president, the chief adviser of the caretaker system, and the Election Commission would be directly involved in the election process. The presidency was under some kind of cloud until recently. Hopefully, there would be no fresh attempt to change him at this final stage. He is not above partisanship but for the sake of continuity, he should be retained.

As regards the next chief adviser, the opposition has expressed its deep reservation about the immediate past chief justice, the first claimant, on account of his affiliations to the ruling party and the position that he had taken on Bangabandhu murder case. If he is not acceptable, he should be persuaded to step aside. There are clear provisions in our constitution to find an alternative judge or a consensus candidate to head the next caretaker government. If we do not resolve it ourselves now, then surely the donors would exert their pressure. In case of Pakistan they had even sent their chosen representative, Moeen Qureshi to head the caretaker government in 1993.

The present chief election commissioner and his deputies seem to have lost confidence of all opposition parties and civic bodies on account of their bungling in the preparation of voters' list. The voters' list is so faulty that people from all walks of life are apprehensive that it would not be possible to hold free and fair elections under their stewardship. Surely, we can find an acceptable chief election commissioner among our retired bureaucrats/judges/eminent citizens. If Sri Lanka and India could find highly credible Dayananda Dissanayake or BB Tandon, respectively, to head their Election Commissions, so can Bangladesh. All we need is the political will of our leadership.

Every minute that we are wasting is precious. The continuation of the current void would only encourage people to assert their power and we have seen their fury at Kansat and, most recently, at Phulbari. Before the situation goes out of hand, our ruling party, which currently holds all the cards in their hands, should start the political dialogue with the opposition parties. The sooner they start, the better they will do.

Syed Muazzem Ali is a former Foreign Secretary.