To challenge Bangladesh's powerful nexus of politicians, special interest groups, and bureaucrats, would entail a complete 180 degree turn by the major political parties. But does any rational thinking person truly believe that this will happen anytime soon?

While we are now hearing the two main parties talking about self-reflection and purging of corrupt leaders, what indications do we have from their past to prove that this is not merely a stop-gap measure in public relations?

Thus, unless people with a different mindset enter politics, change is highly unlikely. Professor Yunus's entering politics may act as the catalyst for large numbers who have not been part of, or corrupted by, mainstream politics to enter, and thereby impact upon, the political culture.

With regard to elections, it may be quite a gamble for Professor Yunus to stand himself at the initial stage. Take the example of Imran Khan in Pakistan. While this comparison may be flawed on many grounds, the point I am trying to make is that an individual's popularity does not necessarily translate into votes.

This is particularly tricky when a large part of the electorate's decision-making hinges upon negative voting or coercion. A loss would, therefore, be recorded as an inaccurate reflection that Bangladeshis prefer corrupt politicians, while at the same time it could discourage future generations from entering mainstream politics.

Another concern is ensuring that special interest groups do not infiltrate the party, especially when it comes to financing. One strategy could be to follow something akin to what Senator John McCain pioneered in 2000, and Governor Howard Dean took to another level in 2004.

Even though both lost their respective US presidential primaries, they were able to raise substantial funds by pooling large numbers of small donations. Dean, in particular, was able to attract a significant portion from the young. Professor Yunus could also tap non-resident bangladeshis in this regard.

Finally, does the so-called "high interest rate" of Grameen Bank disqualify Professor Yunus as a political candidate? The fundamental problem with this line of argument is that most critics tend to equate micro-credit with traditional banks.

This is like comparing apples with oranges (or Professor Yunus with Imran Khan). Traditional banks do not lend to the poor. If they did, there would be no Grameen Bank. The only remotely comparable traditional banking instrument that comes to mind is credit cards (essentially unsecured loans). And guess what? The interest on these is far higher than regular banking rates. The reality is that unsecured credit entails higher rates.

More importantly, if one looks at previous programs where micro-credit was offered at lower than market rates, the poor simply did not get access to it. The richer groups tend to either infiltrate these programs, or the credit managers tend to prefer them as more "credit-worthy" customers.

There is even an economic term -- adverse selection -- for this type of behaviour. For the poor to have access to credit, interest rates need to be higher than the market rates. So the real base for comparison is with other micro-finance institutions, and there Grameen Bank has one of the lowest, if not the lowest, interest rates in the sector.

The author is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.