The EC's list included more than a hundred political parties, most of whose names were not known to the people. The 14 party alliance, including the AL, which happens to be the largest single political party according to the vote statistics of the last three general elections, did not respond positively to the EC's invitation. They have rejected the unilateral appointment of the CEC by the government in the first place.

The opposition AL expected that the alliance government would at least reciprocate the endeavour initiated by the AL government by issuing not one, but two letters in as many days, inviting the then leader of the opposition to sit for a dialogue with the PM to appoint a CEC acceptable to both the opposing political groups. The then leader of the opposition categorically refused to sit with the then PM and asked her, instead, to resign and hand the power over to the caretaker government (CTG) who would, according to her suggestion, appoint the CEC.

The PM of the day had no option by to unilaterally appoint a CEC, who according to some accounts was in fact a candidate recommended by the President. The BNP responded to the appointment by calling a country-wide hartal and creating a commotion at the oath taking ceremony at the Supreme Court premises under the leadership of Moudud Ahmed, the current law minister.

Justice M A Aziz, a judge of the Appellate Division, hastily accepted the offer of government as CEC, without thinking of the long-range implication of his unilateral appointment.

In his first test of capability and intention to hold any free and fair election in the Narsingdi by-election, he failed miserably. The hooliganism exhibited by the thugs of the ruling alliance were visible in the pages of the news media all over, which however, failed to perturb the CEC. In response to the complaints made personally by the apparently defeated candidate the CEC's comments that "I do not have miracle power to redress the situation" only reflects that it is not the CEC but somebody else who holds the "miracle power" to redress any visible wrongdoing in the election process.

In the meantime, the 14 party alliance has put forward a long list of reforms involving the CTG and the EC. The most contentious issue is the selection of the Chief Adviser (CA) of the CTG. The opposition camp has demanded that the President should appoint acceptable persons as Chief Advisor and advisors to the CTG in consultation with and on consensus of all political parties. The opposing parties to this particular element of the reform formula are terming the "consensus of all political parties" as an impossible proposition. The EC's invitation to a hundred or so political parties, incidentally, augments the government's stance of how one can reach a consensus with the leaders of 117 political parties.

In fact, the CEC has even gone further, in reference to AL's rejection of the EC invitation, by uttering words such as "I have nothing to do if any party decides not to join." In an argument with the leader of a party who met with him, he further went on to substantiate his remarks when he weighed AL in terms of its seats in the current parliament. If one goes a little bit back to the history after the fall of the Ershad government, he would discover how the CTG under Justice Shahbuddin Ahmed was constituted on the basis of a formula agreed upon by three political alliances, two of which are now on one side of the aisle. Likewise, Article 58 (C) Clause 5 of the 13th Amendment stipulates: "President shall, after consultation, as far as practicable, with the major political parties, appoint the Chief Advisor from among citizens of Bangladesh who are qualified to be appointed as Advisors under this article." The constitutional provision which was incorporated by BNP itself had taken into consideration the "major political parties" that surely did not envision the 117 or so political parties that the EC has lately discovered.

In one of my earlier pieces on CTG, I implored the option of Justice K M Hasan voluntarily withdrawing from the future responsibility as the CA, exactly the way he withdrew himself from the trial of Bangabandhu murder case. If that happens, albeit no indication of it in the horizon, the provision 58(C) 5 would trigger itself. However, that would be a temporary solution. The extent the highest judiciary has been politicised by the current government, it would be almost impossible to find any future chief justice who, one time or the others, was not connected to BNP politics. This very reality demands a serious consideration of the opposition's demand of this particular aspect of the reform formula.

People who are indoctrinated in BNP politics have the inclination of perceiving their detractors as devoid of any memories. One such indoctrinated writer has criticised the opposition for demanding an amendment to the constitution as, in his words, "too many amendments do not help healthy practice of democracy," altogether side-tracking the natural query as to whose interest was served by the 14th Amendment that increased the retirement age of the judges.

In defence of Justice Hasan, the said writer queried why no one protested when he was appointed judge (AL government did not elevate him to the appellate division; is it not a protest?), turning a blind eye to the, so-far futile, on-going protest of the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Bar Council against the appointment of 19 judges by the present government solely on political considerations. In fact, Justice Hasan rescued himself from his responsibility, an opportunity to prove his neutrality, to try even the self-confessed killers of the father of the nation and his family members.

The current government has systematically belittled every organ of the state. The Speaker of the parliament suggests to institute laws to curtail the freedom of press, the chairman of the press council, a former justice, echoing the relentless tirade of the ministers, admonishes the media not to publish news that undermine the image of the country, while its MPs and envoys speak loudly in favour of extra-judicial killing. Its latest victim is the EC. The way Justice Aziz has so far conducted himself as the chief executive of the Election Commission, proved one of two things: either he is naive or he is playing some one else's card.

In the case of the former, the more palatable of the two, he would be well-advised to take some lessons from two of his well-respected predecessors, namely, Justice Abdur Rouf and Mr. Abu Hena, on how to conduct oneself in this pivotal position. It would be for his own interest to remind himself that he is no longer a sitting judge of the highest court. Moreover, one holding this extremely vital constitutional position should go back a little to the pages of history.

Over the last 35 years, there were only two elections that were held without the participation of AL. Incidentally, the governments under which those elections were held met exactly the same fate. The later of the two happened on February 15, 1996 and the resulting parliament lasted for only 26 days. The MPs were busy, not working out their own agenda, but rather the agenda of the parties that boycotted the election. People whose memories are not very short still remember the lament ("I am nobody now") of the then CEC, a former justice of the highest court as well, who was virtually stripped of his position by the newly installed CTG.

If the second apprehension is true, with a partisan President at the helm of the state and a likely Chief Advisor who failed to rise above a matrimonial relationship to try even the self-confessed killers, it seems that the die has been cast regarding the future of the nation.

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