President Woodrow Wilson, "First Inaugural" (1913), in M.I. Urofsky (1994), "Basic Readings in US Democracy," USIS, Washington DC, p. 203.

The dramatic events of early February sent shockwaves throughout Bangladesh. Powerful political figures from both major parties were detained for questioning by the security forces, under the direction of the caretaker government.

For some, it came as a rude awakening that guns, money and power could fail to provide protection against a challenge to their hitherto unassailable authority. To many, however, the wave of arrests has signaled the end of an age of darkness.

We have just been through a period in which murder could be committed without fear of retribution; fortunes could be made through political corruption without any threat of legal or administrative action. Public interest could be neglected without accountability, and key institutions of the republic could be abased for political purposes without challenge.

It was difficult to overcome a feeling of helplessness in the face of a seemingly all-powerful coalition of greed, intolerance and evil. Politics had come to be regarded as a route to easy riches and unquestioned power, without any prospect of a day of reckoning in this world. There now seems to be a chance to change all that.

What caused this dramatic turn of events? What were the forces behind the sudden emergence of the present caretaker government (CG) on January 11? What lies behind the resolve to arrest such a powerful set of individuals, including some whose very names arouse fear and dread? Can these bold initiatives be sustained? Some of the thieves are being caught -- but why not the biggest ones?

What about murderers and patrons of terrorists? Will the financial beneficiaries of the war crimes of 1971 continue to evade accountability? Will victims of murder and terrorism be compensated by seizure of assets of the perpetrators of these crimes?

There continues to be much interest in all these important questions. There are also attempts to try to identify the principal actors and their respective roles. These speculations are certainly interesting, as they may point to future directions of the CG.

One important point to emphasize is this: the CG could act as it did because it recognized -- quite correctly -- that public opinion would be overwhelmingly in favour of such decisive action.

In a nation that has few of the generally accepted means of gauging public opinion between general elections (such as regular opinion polls, mid-term elections, fair by-elections), the best indication of the electorate's mood came from the media.

The media exposed the rampant corruption, systematic political killings and brutal treatment of the opposition, persecution of minorities and critics, state acquiescence, and even patronization, of fundamentalist terrorist groups, administrative incompetence and politicization of institutions such as the civil service, that characterized the five years of misrule by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-Jamaat-I-Islami (JI) coalition.

Civil society certainly played a part in raising public awareness of these problems, but one must remember that they were only able to do so because of extensive media coverage.

Many people -- including large numbers who had voted for the BNP-JI coalition -- had resolved to express their displeasure through the ballot box. However, hopes for a free and fair election rapidly receded.

The lack of neutrality in the Election Commission and the first CG that took office after the departure of the BNP-JI government, together with evidence of massive fraud in the preparation of the voter-list, made it clear to all that the general elections originally scheduled for January 22 would be rigged.

In this regard the positive role of the "grand alliance" in vociferously opposing such a sham of an election should not be conveniently forgotten. Some individuals even made the ridiculous suggestion that the January 22 elections "needed" to take place to preserve "democracy."

These are the same people who, in a wonderful show of even-handedness, blamed both, the victims of killings and the killers, for the confrontational politics and violence of the past five years. Fortunately, the voices of these apologists for the BNP-JI election-rigging conspiracy were drowned out by the strength of the mass protests.

The public revulsion at what was happening certainly came through, despite the intimidation and the violence, thanks largely to a bold and courageous journalistic fraternity.

During the term of the previous BNP-JI government in particular, there were times when all those who had been wronged or oppressed felt that the press represented their last and only recourse for obtaining justice, or even a fair hearing. The nation owes a deep debt of gratitude to the press and media for standing up for truth, justice and accountability, even when all seemed lost.

We now appear to have a chance to start anew, to restore and rejuvenate our institutions, to rededicate ourselves to the ideals and values that inspired our War of Liberation. To do this in a meaningful manner, it is vital that we learn from our own experience, and from that of other emerging democracies.

We must develop effective mechanisms to ensure that the mistakes of the past can be avoided. Never again should political power be exercised without accountability or checks and balances.

Never again should money and guns dominate our politics. Never again should a climate of impunity prevail. Never again should anyone be in a position to undermine the rule of law and the institutions of the republic. Never again should any of our citizens -- whatever their creed or religion -- be condemned to live in fear.

It is vital that we develop mechanisms that will ensure that our democracy will endure. To guard against the emergence of autocratic rule, such a democracy would need to be liberal and pluralist in nature.

The last 15 years in Bangladesh have highlighted the "winner takes all" syndrome, under which virtually all power accrues to the winning side. There was a failure to develop a system of strong and well-funded elected local governments that would have moderated the impact of political swings at the national level.

Reforms are needed to enhance the effectiveness of our representative bodies and to protect our national institutions from being undermined and captured by narrow political interests (i.e., politicized).

There has been a loss of confidence in key public institutions over the past five years that will need to be reversed. To reduce the likelihood of such problems it may be useful to draw upon the experience of various successful democracies, including the United States, the United Kingdom and India.

We must develop durable systems for accountability and good governance that create the capability for self-righting and internal correction that characterize the world's greatest democracies.

Like any other system of governance, mistakes will happen under any democracy. What is important is that there should be robust institutional mechanisms to rectify such mistakes.

Dr Reza Kibria is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.