In all humility and with the highest of respect to our President, we regretfully confess that we cannot understand how the President/ Chief Adviser could make such a claim. Under what provision of the constitution, under what provision of the law, under what precedence does he nullify one of the greatest achievements of the people of having re-established parliamentary form of government after driving out Ershad's autocracy?

Has there been a change of our Constitution that we are not aware of? Have we moved away from the parliamentary form of government to a Presidential one? Well, this is what the President's/ Chief Adviser's statement seems to imply. We express our total bewilderment as to the statement of the President/ the Chief Adviser. We urge him to explain to us under what article of our Constitution has he declared that we are now under a Presidential form (or type) of government as is clearly indicated by the paragraph we quoted above.

Article 58B states "There shall be a Non-Party Caretaker Government during the period from the date on which the Chief Advisor of such government enters upon office after Parliament is dissolved or stands dissolved by reason of expiration of its term till the date on which a new Prime Minister enters upon office after the constitution of Parliament". So where is the provision of a Presidential form of government? Not only for the period of Non-Party Caretaker Government, nowhere is there any provision of such a system under any circumstances. In fact, there is no such expression in any part of our Constitution. From where did the President/ Chief Adviser get the idea that he is now heading a Presidential form (or type) of government.

Let us consider the fact that he had to take oath twice. Rudimentary understanding of the Constitution suggests that if we are now in a Presidential form of government, then the original oath of office of the President should have been sufficient. Why then was it necessary to take a separate oath for the office of the Chief Advisor. This was needed simply because they are two different offices, with distinct functions and responsibilities in discharging which separate oath is necessary and as such mandatory.

The President and the Prime Minister are two very distinct posts with highly differentiated powers and functions. In our Constitution these two posts are so vastly different, both in terms of duties and power, that no comparison is possible. When an elected government is in office, the PM is all-powerful with the President having practically no power. Under the caretaker dispensation the situation remains more or less the same except that the defence portfolio goes to the President and collectively the caretaker government reports to him. Even then, it is the Chief Advisor who has all the powers of the prime minister. Article 58C(11) states clearly that "The chief advisor shall have the status, and shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges of a Prime Minister, and an advisor shall have the status, and shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges of a Minister." This means, throughout the tenure of the caretaker government, the chief executive of the government remains the chief advisor, and not the President.

Admittedly today's situation is exceptional. One individual, Prof. Iajuddin Ahmed, combines two posts -- that of the President and the Chief Advisor (equivalent to the Prime Minister). The power he enjoys today comes from two distinct offices -- from the office of the President and from the Chief Advisor's. But under no circumstances either of the two posts is abolished. Just because he has assumed the office of the Chief Advisor while being the President, it does NOT means that the post of the Chief Advisor has been abolished. Take for example Prof. Iajuddin's last two speeches, in which he addressed the army and the secretaries. The former speech he had delivered as the President because the defence portfolio belongs to him during the caretaker period. But he could not have addressed the secretaries as the President. He could only do so as the Chief Advisor. The point we are making is that he ONLY enjoys two posts in one person, BUT THAT IN NO WAY CHANGES OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, as the Chief Adviser implied in his yesterday's speech. Could the Honourable President/ Chief Adviser truly comprehend the enormity of the implications of his statement that he so casually mentioned in his speech to the secretaries?

For example, there is a day and night difference in the status of his advisers in a presidential and parliamentary forms of governments. Under the presidential system, the ministers serve the wishes of the president. Contrarily, in a parliamentary form of government, the ministers are an integral part of both decision making and policy making process. An adviser under Article 58C(11) enjoys the status of a minister of a parliamentary form of government. But the president's/ chief Adviser's statement that we are now in a presidential form of government drastically changes the roles of the advisers. The accountability of the secretaries to the advisers undergoes a fundamental change in a presidential form of government as against the parliamentary form.

The President/ Chief Adviser has made a statement that needs to be immediately clarified. We think he should say what he meant, why he said what he did, and under what provision of the Constitution did he base his statement on. Without such an explanation his interpretation of the Constitution will raise a lot of questions that will be extremely unhelpful for the task that faces him now. Given our highest respect for the post of the President and for Prof. Iajuddin as a person, it our belief that those who drafted his speech, fundamentally erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, perhaps inadvertently. We urge the Honourable President to immediately examine the quality of the staff who are serving him.

There is another paragraph of his yesterday's statement we have to quote. The President/ Chief Adviser said (our translation) " According to my own choice I have appointed officials in the President's office and they are performing their duties with diligence. Comments from some quarters on my personal staff are undesirable and amount to interference in the functioning of the State.

This is an amazing statement and one which is not often heard in a democracy. Does it not mean that anybody appointed by the President is above any accountability and questioning by anybody? Why does the President/ Chief Adviser warn us about his personal staff and say such comments are undesirable? Does it befit the role, status and prestige of the President to make such a defence for a personal staff in such a public manner. In fact, the very reverse should have been the case. When questions are being raised in public about his personal staff he should have ordered an investigation and assured himself that the staff who work with him are really free of what they are being accused of. After such an investigation, his office and not he himself, could have issued a statement saying that comments about the staff in question have been investigated and have not been found true, and as such comments should cease. By personally coming to defend his staff publicly (it is only one staff who has been written about in the press recently) he has lowered the prestige of the high office of Presidency and has unnecessarily associated himself personally with a staff.

More amazing and one that verges on incredulity is how can comments about a personal staff be considered interference in the functioning of the State? How can one government servant, appointed on contract, be equated with the function of the State? It is our view that this particular staff has taken advantage of his proximity to the President and has misused his position by, perhaps, misleading the President/ Chief Adviser in including such a paragraph in the official address of the President/Chief Adviser to the secretaries.

As we have written earlier, the President is our last hope. We must do everything possible to protect the President/ Chief Advisor from any unnecessary controversy. But in such an effort everybody must play their part, including the Honourable President, and those who are assisting him.