Article 58 (C) of our constitution relies upon the last chief justice of the Supreme Court failing which the next ex-chief justices, failing which last ex-judges of the Appellate Division, failing which next ex-judges of the Appellate Division, failing which eminent citizens of the country, and at the last resort the president himself, for a potential appointee to the office of the chief adviser.

According to Dr M Zahir, the renowned constitutional expert, after the refusal of the last chief justice to become the chief adviser of the caretaker government, other ex-chief justices should be considered before opening the office to ex-judges of the Appellate Division. It is not known whether the recourse to former chief justices was exhausted. Similarly, one wonders if there was not a single eminent person who could be relied upon by both the parties.

After discussion with political parties, and as decreed in the constitution, the incumbent President Iajuddin Ahmed, in addition to his present duties, himself took charge as the chief adviser. Thus a showdown with the opposition was averted. The Awami League neither congratulated nor opposed the appointment and subjected its approval contingent upon the future conduct of the chief adviser in terms of holding a peaceful and impartial election. This last-resort option of the constitution concentrates power in the hands of one person. If the chief adviser-cum-president is impartial, well and good, but if he is not, it could be a total fiasco. Such constitutional crisis as the nation has seen now can repeat unless something is done in regard to finding a better way of appointing the chief adviser or setting a criterion of neutrality for appointing future chief advisers of the caretaker government.

The former Chief Justice KM Hassan was opposed by the 14-party alliances because he was considered to be a BNP person. If that is so then other justices are susceptible to the accusation because the political party in power appoints them. So then what's the use of relying on ex-justices who can one way or the other tagged onto a political party? Once a justice, he by oath is required to be impartial. Instead of questioning his impartiality, a guideline could have been formulated stating what the chief adviser should or should not do in terms of holding a peaceful and impartial election, whether or not he can ban use of mobiles or transfer partisan officials, etc. At the end of the day it is important that the bureaucracy remains neutral. With the politicization of our bureaucracy by all the past governments, how this could be achieved is anybody's guess.

Alternately, if the opposition is not happy with the would-be chief adviser it may be allowed to appoint a non-political person as an additional chief adviser or deputy chief adviser of their own choice delegating them with such powers as deemed necessary. In this way opposition could remain satisfied that they are not adversely affected. As another option the existing chief justice could be called upon to become the chief adviser and after completing the election he will return to his original position. In his absence, an acting chief justice will be appointed so that the Supreme Court is not disturbed. For these, the constitution requires to be amended.

Another option would be to have a lottery where a number of names will be drawn from retired chief justices, ex-Appellate judges, eminent citizens of the country, and the opposition nominee will get to pick one from there. Eminent citizens would include citizens who held important non-political positions, and who have reached the top in their professions.

Criteria of neutrality for becoming eligible for the post of a chief adviser should include looking into one's credentials to find out if he or she has been an active member of any political party, or if the person addressed any meeting of any political party any time in the past. The person in question cannot have irrational biases towards any political party.

In our childhood days between friends we used to settle our playful disputes by flipping a paisa (a metal coin) and calling "heads" or "tails." Surprisingly, this is practiced in the election of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Our Permanent Representative KM Kaiser reportedly lost to Javier Perez de Cuellar upon flipping of a coin. Can't our political parties resort to coins when they do not agree?

Our nation has become so divided that the time is not far away when graveyards will become politicized so that burials would be refused if one happens to be on the opposite side of the political fence. So all should work for uniting the nation not dividing it.

Altafur Rahman is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.