I further added that the current army-backed government is genuinely committed to reforming these institutions to pave the way for a free and fair election. The accomplishments to date, and other reforms underway, are a testament to that commitment.

Unlike this government, all previous military rulers were privately conniving, politically power hungry, administratively autocratic, and deliberately evasive in enacting institutional reforms.

Army chief Moeen U Ahmed's declaration on April 28, that the army will go back to the barracks and has no plan, as speculated by many, to launch a political party, has reinforced my feeling that this general isn't as dubiously ambitious, at least for now, as his former counterparts.

This seemed apparent with the preservation of media freedom even in a period of state of emergency, and undeterred support for institutional reforms for good governance. But the skeptics also advance their plausible counter-arguments.

Any prediction of an optimistic prospect for democracy and reforms certainly runs the risk of being wrong. What stands in the way are the aging and embattled politicians, and their steadfast adherence to the old brand of politics, lead by two inept leaders. The aborted scheme to exile them, however well intentioned, was simply misguided and ill executed.

Well-intentioned because the whole country, except their courtiers and duped followers, would like them to be purged from politics. Misguided -- because bringing corruption charges, which may be easily framed, especially against Khaleda, would weaken their standings at home and abroad even before prosecution.

All of Khaleda's so-called advisors can be classified as accomplices in her kleptocratic empire. They are still cajoling her to remain the leader, as if she is loaded with this attribute, to the detriment of the party and the country. Isn't it appalling that instead of impeaching her, these lackeys are still bleating their support for her; as if to say, "Whatever she did was to make the party people rich. How can we abandon her now?"

Today, BNP which has patented corruption, politicisation and political arrogance -- is in utter disarray, and Khaleda made it so. But many of Khaleda's courtiers still want her to lead the party, even though her continued association with the party is only hastening its disintegration.

Her not being au fait, and gross ineptitude in managing the country's affairs coupled with her incapacity to comprehend what constitutes good governance, were the precursors to the country's entrapment in the current predicament.

What about Hasina's leadership? A coterie of AL leaders from different strata, mostly those claiming to have been marginalised in the past, expressed their resolve on April 23 to circumscribe the party president's absolute control over the organisation. Others have spoken defiantly. "We don't want an Awami League without the daughter of Bangabandhu, and people will never accept any leadership minus Hasina," said an AL leader claiming anonymity. I am not so sure that people will shed tears for either of them.

As we see, both parties are infested with courtiers whose loyalties lie not with the people or even their party, but rather with a political figure. And while what is true of Khaleda isn't necessarily true of Hasina, why should people trust her leadership and judgment after seeing the kind of candidates she nominated for the now defunct January 22 election?

While intra-party reform ideas are crisscrossing the political sphere, a cluster of politicians of different parties, civil society members as well as some professionals have been pondering the prospect of launching a new political party. Should this move materialise, it will consist of run-away politicians from AL, BNP, and JP, among others.

If political parties are reformed, as desired by the EC and pledged by the politicians, what would be the impulsion for forming a new party, other than the fiendish pursuit of self-aggrandisement? The prevalence of self-promoting and opportunity-seeking politicians is the reason why the country has over 100 parties, and why former military usurpers could form political parties (example: JP and BNP) to perpetuate power and roll back democracy. Should such a party, if it comes to light, be sanctioned to contest in the 2008 election?

The EC's proposed three years moratorium on retired government officials from contesting election is innately weak. The prohibition should be for the first national election that follows after their joining politics. The same should apply to newly formed political parties as well.

The more germane question is; how can the run-away politicians from AL and BNP blend under one banner, given their conflicting ideological orientations and underpinnings? AL is a liberal and secular democratic party, whereas BNP is a rightist party closely wedded to religious extremists, anti-liberation elements, and war criminals. Leaving aside the scumbags, there are, of course, good people everywhere; BNP and AL both have dutifully assembled some of those to "show and tell" for political expediency.

Politicians who are thoughtfully demanding deep structural reforms are being singled out for admonition and censure. One wonders if party politics in Bangladesh is getting ever more knotty and unpredictable. If both Khaleda and Hasina are successfully prosecuted on corruption charges, it will leave a serious leadership vacuum because of years of autocracy in party operations.

Bangladesh was ranked 75th among 165 democracies, and is grouped as one of the 55 "flawed democracies," in a global survey report released by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) on November 24, 2006. That was when the rancorous politics of Khaleda and Hasina defined the national political climate.

Although the EIU report labeled half of the world's countries as democracies, the number of "full democracies" is only 28. Of the remaining countries, 55 are rated "flawed democracies," 55 are authoritarian and 30 are considered "hybrid regimes."

After the institutions of good governance are reformed, and a free and fair election is consummated in 2008, my hope is that Bangladesh will be the 29th full democracy in the world.

But the hope will soon turn into despair, unless political parties are reformed in the true sense. That may not be enough; the reformist government also needs blanket support from major political parties, and all its international friends, in its reforms mission -- not incessant pressure for an early election.

Abdullah A Dewan is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.