They can make many people happy by leaving. Now this is nothing but a simplistic wish.

Besides, there is no good reason to believe that just a change of cast will bring sunshine in all political parties. One group of oligarchic leaders will be replaced by another. But does reform mean change of faces?

Now let us think through the issues carefully. I am not a member of BNP or Awami League, what right do I have to demand: "please introduce reforms in your party, practice democracy, be good, be kind to your opponent and be nice to the government, avoid fatty food," and so on?

Just as these political parties or their leaders do not tell me how to bring about reforms in my lifestyle (avoiding fatty food, tidying up my desk, reading the New York Times more regularly, or doing laundry, or whatever), how can I justify telling them who they should anoint as successor and how, when should they hold their conferences, and so on?

I can preach: "political parties should practice more democracy," and they, in turn, could very well reply: "please keep you opinion to yourself."

So basically, I cannot demand anything of any political party. I can, however, register my hope that political parties will be reformed, or the education system, especially Madrasa education, will be reformed.

In a democratic culture you can demand anything, as a manner of speaking. No one can stop you from wishing or dreaming. At the same time, as a citizen with rights, you can protest and exercise your choices.

Citizens can demand of a government public safety, security, or even smooth traffic flow, because governments are contract-bound to fulfill certain demands. However, there are limits, too.

Demands must be realistic. Our schools are financially strapped, but you cannot demand that every school be give given a million dollars for buying books and lab equipments, and for training teachers. Good demands, but not realistic.

One of the most simplistic and unreflective slogans that I have heard is that political parties should practice democracy, because if they don't practice democracy how can they institutionalise democracy in the country.

This takes me to a tangential but related point. The priority, at the moment, is introducing a reading culture. A quick read of some key texts in political science can be a good starting point. I recommend German sociologist, Robert Michels' Political Parties (1911). Michels said that anyone who says organisation, says oligarchy. If you have a large organisation, it is very likely to be oligarchic.

Now you will see why large political parties like Awami League or BNP or the Republican Party of USA, or IBM or Microsoft, looks more like an oligarchy than democracy. Michels' theory has been known as the iron law of oligarchy. The tendency -- not inevitability -- is real enough, and the exceptions are rare. Besides, a political party is not a social service organisation; politicians are not boy scouts.

Once we have finished studying Michels, and have educated ourselves about why large organisations become oligarchic, we ought to take a crash course in Rational Choice Theory (RCT).

The main point of RCT is that people do things to maximise benefits to themselves. In calculating benefits most people do take into account the cost. This will help us understand why political party bosses do not want to reform.

Reforms for some of them will mean lack of privilege and power. It has a cost, but no tangible benefit. If political parties know that many people who are voters will not vote for them then that becomes a cost.

Faced with the possibility of such a cost they will reform, but they will reform only to the extent where costs do not outweigh benefits. A Princeton-educated economist knows all this. My lectures are meant more for the layman.

If the rich in Dhaka give 1% of their income as allowance to a poor man they know things will change for the better. But they don't. Why? It has no tangible benefit for them. This is why you have a government that collects tax to redistribute to those who need help.

What can government do to stem oligarchic tendencies in political parties? Not much. The best thing that a good government can and must do is to ensure that good and sensible laws are followed.

Political parties, like business organisations or any other sector of society, must come under the same sort of laws that are just and help secure collective interest. The most dangerous thing is laws being applied unjustly and unwisely. This is what will hurt collective interest most.

I demand reforms of our mind-set through education.

Habibul Haque Khondker is a sociologist.