Some even do not want the political parties to return. Apparently, the people are willing to give more time to the caretaker government for housecleaning. But then there are reservations. Despite popular support there is also ambivalence, skepticism and cautionary notes in the writings, discussions and debates among the intelligentsia that include academics, journalists, writers, and civil society. Why this ambivalence?

A few good men have taken a bold and risky move to eradicate corruption, should we not support them to change the course of our nation? Here are a few possible reasons for the ambivalence and suggestions to address them.

No historical evidence

The pessimism is rooted in our history. We have no previous record of success against high-level corruption. International studies on corruption in developing countries also provide a depressing record. Field Marshal Ayub Khan of Pakistan had popular support at the beginning against politicians and corruption, but that did not last long. In 1982, General Ershad took power with a promise to provide a corruption-free society. He left power only to be convicted with corruption. So far the evidences do not speak favorably.

Transitory nature of the caretaker government

Skepticism also originates from the transitory nature of the caretaker government, which lives on a "culture of present." It has no past glory and it cannot make future promises. It has no followers to undertake its unfinished task. The chessboard may be redrawn when political parties return. This creates a natural credibility gap, especially under Emergency. Our military, which is providing a silent backing to the caretaker government, needs to assure that the reforms will continue even when the caretaker government is not there. A patriotic military is the last source of solace and support to a nation. Hope we always have that support.

Money does speak

The kingpins are behind the bars but not their money or the machinery. They still own private banks, trading houses, industries, newspapers and TV stations. They employ a large number of people and carry a huge amount of unaccounted cash. Their combined economic wealth is substantial for a small country like Bangladesh. From a distance, they still can affect the dances of the street. Their power to sabotage the good moves should not be underestimated. Their compatriots may have gone hiding for now but will resurface at the first opportunity.

Institutionalized nature of corruption

Corruption has been institutionalized in our culture. It is there in every nook and corner of the society. Eradicating it would be like, as the Bangla proverb says, "thok bachte ga ujar." Unless we institute proper moral and educational training in our families, schools and colleges this is going to be a cat and mouse chase. We will never be able to put our house in order. The fight needs to be ideological as well as economic and political.

Economics of corruption

It is really against us. A poor country like Bangladesh with a large young population, high unemployment rate, income inequality, and inefficient market is not likely to do well in her fight against corruption. There are a large number of people who just live on corruption. It is their livelihood. There are too many variables that are uncontrollable. Caretaker government can affect only a few of them. Our resources are limited to combat organized corruption. Unless dramatic changes occur in the area of economics the success may be limited.

Need for political support

Political support is a critical input to fighting corruption. We need strong support from the political parties. But unfortunately, they are the greatest sufferer of this house-cleaning process.

On January 19, Awami League (AL) General Secretary Abdul Jalil said that the party would not take any responsibility for those leaders and workers who have been proven guilty of criminal offences. This is a welcome gesture. Mahfuz Anam rightfully noted, "the nation's political parties ought to begin a process of distancing themselves from individuals who have sullied their own as well as their organizations' reputation." So far distancing has not been very significant. Political parties need to start their own house cleaning before lending a hand to a national fight against corruption.

The reasons for ambivalence should not deter us from fighting corruption. Rather we should take it as a collective battle. The government needs to take serious measures to "muster the support" of the civil society, bureaucracy, business, and intelligentsia.

The gap between the military and civil society also needs to be addressed. Last time we saw all these power constituencies working under one umbrella was the liberation war. We need that kind of concerted effort to fight corruption. Moral suasion and public relations must continue. If this initiative fails the consequences can be extremely fatal; the vengeance can be dangerous.

The reform of administrative and legal system is a necessary condition for success against corruption. Reform of the Judiciary, Public Service Commission, Civil Administration, and Police and empowering of the Anticorruption Commission are right moves.

The process must continue. Since the caretaker government may not have the time to complete the task, the military must remain vigilant behind the scene. Military may need to strengthen their intelligence apparatus for the purpose. However, caution must be taken to see that no one misuses or abuses the intelligence apparatus. The innocent must be protected.

Appointing right people at different administrative and judicial leadership positions is critical in the fight against corruption. Appointment of Lieutenant General (Retired) Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury as the chief of Anticorruption Commission is a very laudable step in this regard.

I like our Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Moeen's three criteria for selecting the right people: honesty, competency and sincerity. I believe there are a large number of people in the bureaucracy, judiciary, media, education, police and military who meet these three criteria. Let us find them, empower them and support them. United they can be a strong force against corruption. Special efforts should be taken to forge unity among them.

The caretaker government needs strong media support to fight corruption. The media must be left open and alive. A free press is better than a restricted press. There is nothing more beneficial to a nation than open discussions or debates. Suppressing the media will cut-off the debate. In the long run, the dialectic (Hegelian) process should provide a better synthesis. Our patience should outlast our irritation for that.

We need to punish corrupt businessmen but protect our entrepreneurial culture. The contribution of private entrepreneurs in our economic growth is very laudable. Their cooperation is essential for fighting corruption. We need to keep the economics in our favor. We are fighting corruption in business but not business. Entrepreneurial spirit of the free market should be left alone. The "visible hand" of the government should not tamper with it.

Apparently, we are obsessed with corruption. There are other national priorities that we need to attend to -- poverty, education, health, economic growth, international trade, global image etc. I am not sure caretaker government can address these issues in their short tenure. But what they can do well is, offer us a free, fair and credible election. It is their primary task, their reason for being -- raison d'etre.

Drifting away from it would cast doubts in their motives and initiatives. That would hurt our fight against corruption. It is time for them to make specific commitment in this regard. An early announcement should help us come out of the "fine mess," as the Economist (February 22) calls it, we are in. We hope for the best.

Dr ANM Waheeduzzaman is a Professor of Marketing and International Business at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.