Perhaps the sunny side of what happened last Sunday is the economy of scale. One person will wear two hats, what is commonly known as double-hatting in corporate parlance (funnily, one legal Gulliver told us the Lilliputs on TV that he thought the idea was funny!). Not to speak of cost saving for the republic. We have got two heads for the price of one. There are other benefits. No conflict, no ego hassle, and no time wasted in decision-making. Between Iajuddin and Iajuddin, things will run smooth and speedy.

These are the apparent plus points of having a chief advisor who is also the president of the republic. Frankly speaking, I don't blame it on the president if he chose to self-appoint himself for an additional responsibility. He had to do what he had to do, because it was unfair of others to create the mess and then dump it on him. Those who are criticizing him now are the habitual oinkers. Given the chance, they might not have done it any better than him.

Don't we know that already? If all the people who took decisions in the past had taken the right decisions, why should this country come to this soup thirty-five years after independence? Obviously, mistakes were made, incrementally and emphatically, because private interest always prevailed over the party and party interest always prevailed over the country. And then eloquent men and women defended them like knights in the shining armour of their glib tongues (legal giants included).

Say, this time the president has taken a wrong decision. He hasn't followed the constitution to the letter and read between the lines before he decided to take up an additional office. What else could he do given the choice? On one side, he had a strife-torn country where people were fighting on the streets, killing each other. On the other side, the opposition was spitting fire on him to install the caretaker government within twenty-four hours.

Okay, the president may have played into the hands of the party, which brought him to power. It is also possible that he may have played a hand if the surprise of last Sunday was the outcome of any conspiracy. But who is to blame for it? Isn't it the responsibility of the chess player to carefully move his pieces so that he can avoid a checkmate? The opposition didn't concentrate as hard on strategy as they did on showdown. If there was a trap, they walked right into it.

It is interesting to watch our legal eagles working on the double to interpret the constitution (many of them were involved in framing the caretaker government concept which they now find flawed). Some of them are asking the president to hand over the chief advisor's role even after he took the oath. Well, there are prescribed steps, which need to be taken to appoint the chief advisor. Did the president go through all those steps? He said he did, but the legal minds aren't convinced. So they are accusing the president of shortchanging the constitution. Fair game, if the president has violated the constitution. They also have the right to argue what constitutes that violation.

But what were the choices before the president? The first choice of former chief justice declined the job. The first choice of the retired Appellate Division judge is already in the Election Commission. The next choice in one category said he would step in provided both parties wanted him. The next choice in the other category was not adequately explored. The president didn't take the matter to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which he could.

The fact that he didn't do the last two things makes him suspect. But it may not be always easy to watch your steps when the house is burning. Again, how could the president perform under the stifling pressure of others breathing down his neck? The opposition gave him 24 hours to form the caretaker government. Even if he has made a mistake (hope it was not premeditated), that mistake has brought the opposition back to negotiation and restored peace on the streets.

Still, let bitterness come sooner than later. The ten advisors have been sworn in already, but those who are not convinced should come forward and stop this president before he takes further steps. It seems the politicians are not questioning his authority as much as his neutrality. But the legal mandarins are questioning his authority. They can take the president to the court before or after his term is finished.

Meanwhile, let the president-cum-chief advisor do his job without treating him like some fraternity boy looking for initiation. It is unfair to push him to deliver what three full-time governments couldn't do in the past. If you weigh the gravity of the demands, they range from instant solutions to wild imaginations. It is easy to remove the picture of the former prime minister from all offices. But crushing terrorism, recovering firearms, and rooting out corruption aren't quite like change of socks.

This is where the two-in-one might get stretched. And remember this president is no stud. At 72, he is already struggling with failing health and can't be an endless bundle of energy. Besides, if he could achieve so much by November 3 or even within the 3 months of the caretaker government, then why bother having an election? Make this magician President-for-Life and let him run the country!

Who knows why the president took the oath of a second office last Sunday night? Is it his love of the party? Or is it his love of the country? If he can hold a free and fair election, he will dispel all misgivings. The flavour will return to food and the taste buds will wake up again. To be or not to be, God save this nation.

Mohammad Badrul Ahsan is a banker.