Admittedly, Bangladesh went through around three days of anarchy and lawlessness which has subsided, but has not stopped altogether. The horrific violence was, arguably, for getting a non-party, neutral caretaker chief. Would it be an exaggeration to claim that the concept itself is a defective one? Why, then, should the appointment of caretaker chief cause the loss of so many lives? Maybe the concept is not altogether a bad one. However, our political leaders have set the stage for turning it either ineffective or defunct.

In fact, the nation has not only experienced days of mayhem, it has also seen extraordinary drama and maneuverings centering on Bangabhaban, as well. The wisdom of AL's agitating against KM Hasan seems a logical, but not a sledgehammer, argument, as the ground had been prepared by the BNP coalition by increasing the retirement age of Supreme Court judges. However, the BNP coalition's reasons for turning down the remaining judges has never been made clear.

To be frank, the AL and its allies made only one justice questionable, but the BNP allies stigmatised the whole community of judges. In this bloody game of revenge, AL might have won initially by forcing M Hasan to express embarrassment, and BNP might have regained the upper hand subsequently by installing their man in the key post of chief adviser by twisting the relevant constitutional provision. There is very strong controversy regarding non-compliance of systematic constitutional procedures.

But has democracy gained anything in the process? No, democracy has been served a mortal blow instead. Moreover, the caretaker concept itself has been brought to a precipice. Yes, the major political parties in the country nurture only one principle, and that is to gain or regain power, and they have no scruples whatsoever. They can be outstandingly innovative, not in promoting democracy, but in capturing power. A little flashback might clarify my point in this regard.

Latifur Rahman -- the third chief adviser -- was brought to his position by the then AL regime by superseding other judges. Even then, however, he served the AL poorly as chief adviser, and the rest is known to all. To make the fourth chief adviser their man, the BNP coalition even went for constitutional amendment (14th amendment). What I want to convey is that neither AL nor BNP wanted to let the law take its own course, and install a person who becomes chief adviser automatically.

And their pediliction for manipulation must have reached a new height when they more or less forced the president to take over as chief adviser, though he had many an option to consider and exhaust before jumping the queue. So, the president-cum-chief adviser now enjoys almost absolute power. But power is supposed to be commensurate with duties as well. The BNP is now be wallowing in satisfaction that they have been able to make the opposition parties swallow their man as caretaker chief.

Now, who is going to resist them from coming back to power? They have every reason to think in that line. They might even come back to power. Prior to all that, however, there would have to be a free, fair, and fully inclusive election, including of course AL. Fallen dictator Ershad repeated his prediction that AL will ultimately come to the elections. I, however, do not think that AL will ultimately go for election, unless a level playing field is created by the current caretaker government.

Because, the equation is quite simple: Why should they go for election if the results have already been fixed? The president -- who was a titular head only a few days back -- is now all powerful. And it is he who will have to endear himself to the AL block. Though the president disregarded AL's plea not to assume the post of chief adviser they, rather surprisingly, offered him the olive branch. The president has now no option but to accept it.

He just can't afford to underestimate AL's accommodating attitude. The bottom line is that every citizen of the country can afford to fail once, as he may have another chance to recover. For the president, however, there is only one chance. And his shoulders now carry the full weight of the future of democracy in the country. If he falters, the whole nation will turn upside down, and so will democracy. Hollow promises will bear no fruit. He must deliver.

Kazi SM Khasrul Alam Quddusi is Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration University of Chittagong.