Do people have any say at all in how this country should be run? Certainly, if the political and corporate leaders, their families and cronies are defined as the "people," then this is indeed a people's republic.

In the guise of a makeshift democracy, what we have witnessed since 1971 is a blend of plutocracy, oligarchy and kleptocracy, with a cunning demagoguery. But now we see familo-cracy encroaching upon the weak façade of our political culture.

The BNP chairperson has pointed that out quite blatantly by appointing her own sibling to a top party position. The AL leader is more tactful than her counterpart. However, if the internal dissent reaches its crescendo, she might consider thinking along that line before she is voted out, which the nation is yet to see.

Needless to say, these two ladies will never step down of their own volition. Ever since the early 80s, when both of them were brought out from their cozy living rooms to run their respective parties which were showing signs of degeneration, the two ladies have been at loggerheads and had nothing but contempt for each other.

What little political ethos and vision there had been in AL and BNP during their formative stage were totally overshadowed by the two ladies' incessant mud-throwing, mutual distrust and culpable feminine resentment for each other, while their national interest lay aside as merely a secondary issue. Neither of them could ever transcend their petty personal aversion for each other.

This nation has a big chunk, which can be classified as a classic archetype of "un-people," a phrase coined by Mark Curtis in his Web of deceit (2003) and Unpeople (2004). In a global setting, the "un-people" are the people who populate most of the third-world, and who are abused and exploited by the super-powers in Whitehouse and Whitehall only for the benefit of their (superpower's) global political, military and economic ill design.

Recent cases are the indigenous people of Chagos islands (Indian Ocean), the East Timorese people, the Iraqi people, the Afghan people, the Palestinian people etc. The "un-people" of Bangladesh are the millions who till our soil to make a living, which barely buys them a rickety shed to live in, rice and potato to eat, kerosene to light their dark nights.

They are the rickshaw pullers who use their muscles to get us to places -- the day-labourers building our roads, abodes and mansions -- the contracted labourers -- the house-boys and maids who do all our errands and chores -- the third and fourth class government employees who do all our paper work -- the vast majority of workers who give their hard labour to make a wage which they can barely survive on.

They do not even have a formidable trade union, which could be their mouthpiece on issues. The trade unions, which they have are also controlled by their political masters, i.e. the "people."

In a nutshell, "un-people" are those whose inalienable basic rights (pursuit of peace, shelter, security and happiness) could easily be trampled and crushed with impunity by the super-powers. So, too, in a microcosm, the ruling elites have always viewed the interests of "un-people" of this country as a mere superfluity.

The "people" actually enjoy the lion's share of profits from national policies, which are more often dictated by the need of this class (the people). Of course, the policies and legislations on all matters of social justice do not ever reach the "un-people."

However, come election time, the carrots are always put in front of this class of "un-people" who, for a moment, become the "people." And seeing the antics and hearing the phony outcries of the leaders from their podiums, hearing their endless rhetoric full of caring words for the "un-people," one would think that the wellbeing of the "un-people" was the only issue these leaders pondered on. The very inequity and disparity in our socio-political fabric have created this class of "un-people" who are doomed to remain forever under-privileged.

Recently, some US senators overtly suggested that they would like to see an early election. Since when did US care about democracy in the third world? One may be forgiven for thinking that these US senators actually lose sleep at night over this.

To be advised by a nation (US) whose own elections are questionable, and whose geo-political demagoguery and bullying have caused carnage in most parts of the third world and destroyed many legitimate democratic governments, is preposterous.

The tin-pot democracy in Afghanistan, and a puppet democracy in Iraq, are disgraceful legacies of US foreign policy. My dear US senators: As of now the overwhelming majority of the world is fed up with the foreign policies that you all were complicit in, and you have the gall to insist on a road map for an early election in this poor country of ours!

Rather, you should try and see whether any road-map is feasible for an early Iraq and Afghanistan pull out. You would be far better meddling in your own administration, which has created this colossal mess that is Iraq.

SI Zaman is a University Professor.