Out of the six mayors of our big cities, four are behind bars. Two of them belong to AL, and, given the options, probably would not blame their top leader for the ills of the party. Of two mayors who are enjoying heydays, although stories of their unbridled corruption captured the headlines in the media, one of them has already called it a day while the other has publicly demanded that his party leader and her family members should be tried for the wrong-doings, as if the mayor was ignorant about it, although he was elected through her support and blessings.

Over the past few weeks the stories of confessions of a number of politicians have captured the headlines of even some of the responsible media, defying even the minimum ethics and practices that forbid publication of such confessions since they were made under duress. Even a renowned legal expert took those stories into cognizance and made his conclusions. The editor of a popular Bangla daily went as far as writing obituaries for the two ladies, based on the stories of so-called confessions. Amazingly, the charges that have been so far laid against them have no relevance to the stories circulated, in different versions, in the media.

A few of the politicians who have been taken into custody without any prior legal suit or charge against them have been taken on remand, and humiliating stories were circulated, in some cases with CD, without giving them an opportunity to make any rebuttal. This is a gross violation of human rights and flagrant departure from the road to establishing rule of law. I had not seen any story of their corruption appearing in any news media while they were in government or in opposition. They played a vital role in galvanizing the opposition movement to resist the January 22 election, which created the ground for the declaration of emergency and the birth of the current CTG.

It is indeed ironic that the person whose betrayal of the nation is analogous only to the historical deception by Yahya, has turned out to be the big "reformer," while the persons who negotiated in good faith to arrive at a settlement of their reform agenda, in tune with the wishes of the people, are in the custody of the authorities who are implementing the very reforms.

BNP reformers have already publicly announced their 15-point reform proposals. They sound quite democratic, and could be viewed as revolutionary since the existing BNP constitution does not have an iota of democracy in it. All the powers are vested in a single person. This is, by no means, a new discovery. Nevertheless, many of today's reformists had been faithfully serving Her Majesty even after she made the identity of her heir- apparent crystal clear a few years ago by appointing her son as the senior joint secretary general of the party, notwithstanding that no such portfolio exists in BNP's constitution. No one protested her devious and multi-faceted plans to rig the de-railed general election.

The most noteworthy aspect of their proposed reform is limiting the term of the chairpersons. There is nothing wrong if the party supporters want it. But the objectivity of the proposal has given rise to criticism, since the amendments are to be made retroactively effective. There was no council meeting of the party for the last 14 years. Is the party chairperson the only one responsible for this? The party SG, as the organizing chief of the party, has to bear at least as much responsibility, if not more. Over the last few days, through the courtesy of satellite TV, audiences all over the world were able to see the palatial house of the party SG transformed into a Mecca for BNP politicians.

They included many former MPs and ministers, whose stories of wanton corruption filled the pages of the media before and after "one eleven." So what, they are now reformist! No matter how democratic the proposed reform proposals might appear, democracy demands that they must be discussed and passed in the party's national council held in a free atmosphere. However, with the rope of remand hanging around their necks, how many of them have the strength of personal honesty, and loyalty to the current leadership, to vote against the reforms, if the meeting of the national council is held under special permission from the government?

The Jatiyo Party chief has already passed the mantle over to Anisul Islam Mahmud and is opting for a "retired" life, presumably in exchange for all the cases of corruption hanging over him for years going into dormancy for good. As the only convicted former chief executive of the state, this decision was long over-due. However, how the party will fare without the favourite son of the region, the party's sole bastion of support at the helm, is yet to be seen.

AL's reform proposals have been made public by a presidium member, the main emphasis of which is to initiate joint leadership in making major decisions for the party. AL's constitution has been the most democratic among the major parties, practiced or not, albeit there is always room for its expansion. Unlike BNP, its presidium members are either "older brother or sister" or "uncle or auntie" of the party chief. She is no "madam" to anyone. Considering this, why didn't the presidium members admonish the party chief before, or censure her after, she made a unilateral policy decision? Was any "dictatorial" decision by her ever been challenged or discussed in the highest decision making body of the party?

Recently, there was media frenzy about a presidium member who most of the AL sympathizers believe is a big liability for the party. How can a person who cannot even get elected from his own constituency remain a member of the presidium, let alone contemplate leading the party? Amu is no Mannan Bhuiyan, and BNP, a conglomerate of people without any sort of ideology, is no AL. By the same token, Sheikh Hasina is not a "madam" to her party faithful; they can easily feel allegiance to her emotions. Frequent public outbursts of her Bengali emotions, and her modest lifestyle place her in the cluster of commoners. Beggars or barons alike have easy access to her. She may not be the most prudent leader the party could have, but she is a sister, a mother, and a daughter to millions of her party workers and well wishers, and I do not foresee anyone dethroning her in a free party council, if she does not voluntarily relinquish her post.

If it ever happens for whatever reason, I am afraid that so far as the AL is concerned she would be in a position one day, when fundamental rights of the people are restored, to imitate Mahatma Gandhi when he retorted that "India is with me" to Lord Mountbatten's observation that "the Congress is not with you Mr. Gandhi." People are the ultimate arbiters in repudiating or rehabilitating a politician. Power of emergency, of course, can do either of them, albeit only transiently.

Dr. Mozammel H. Khan is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.