I will begin with the interpretation of the constitution. The caretaker government, the Election Commission, the BNP-Jamaat alliance and their respective intellectuals have all been collectively arguing that the general election must be held "within ninety days after parliament is dissolved," as stipulated in Article 123 para 3. But when attention is drawn to Article 123 para 4, where the ninety days provision is relaxed for bye-elections and for "reasons of an act of God," the above collective aggressively maintains that it is not applicable for the general election. Why not? And here I found the acting chief election commissioner (a post which is itself unconstitutional) telling the media with a gesture of glee and satisfaction: "Is there a tsunami, flood or earthquake? No act of God has taken place, therefore the question of postponement of the general election beyond the ninety days does not arise!"

Critics, including members of the Awami League (AL)-led grand alliance, came out with three varied responses to counter the above contention. Firstly, let the president refer the issue to the Supreme Court, and let the latter judge as to whether the extension of the ninety days provision earmarked for the bye-elections is applicable to the general election or not. In this context, they refer to Article 106, which allows the president to "obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court" in matters of "public importance."

Secondly, critics also draw attention to Article 7 para 1, that is, "All powers in the Republic belong to the people...." This nullifies the reading of Article 123 para 3 in isolation, and since the crisis is a matter concerning the "people" there ought not to be any bar for the president to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court.

Finally, critics also argue that the ninety days provision stipulated in Article 123 para 3 was part of the constitution long before the "Non-Party Caretaker Government" provisions (Chapter IIA of the constitution) were inserted in the constitution and, therefore, ought not to be read in isolation. Rather, the said article must be read in collaboration with Chapter IIA where no time frame is given for the holding of the office of the non-party caretaker government save the mentioning of the "period" from "the date on which the chief adviser ... enters upon office after parliament is dissolved...till the date on which a new prime minister enters upon his office after the constitution of Parliament' (Article 58B [1]).

The above should suffice to nullify the "legalist" argument for holding the general election within ninety days. But there is more to it. Let me go back to the acting chief election commissioner's comment on the "act of God." It seems that he has chosen a secular interpretation of the "act of God," where the latter stands only for the natural disasters, or what could be referred to as the divine curse on earthly people! But such a secular interpretation of Article 123 para 4 ceases to be meaningful following the insertion of Article 8 para 1A which states: "Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions." I am sure the acting chief election commissioner would agree that even his elevation to the position of "acting chief" could not have happened without the "act of God," or the blessing of the Almighty!

In light of Article 8 para 1A, therefore, the "act of God" must include both natural disasters and human actions. Since the current political crisis resulted from human actions, that ought not to be the reason for coming to the conclusion that the "act of God" was absent. The divine, after all, as the Article indicates, remains "the basis of all actions!" It is interesting to see that even groups, parties and individuals taking pride in their identity on the basis of religion waste no time in seeking "secular judgments," when found expedient, to the point of displacing religion altogether.

Why then the rigid stand in the name of standing by the constitution, knowing well that the "legal" argument is weak, if not flawed? What is the way out then, particularly now that we have constitutionalized human actions (a la Article 8 para 1A) as no less than an act of God? On this, I would limit myself only to three scenarios.

Firstly, presidential reference to the Supreme Court is perhaps the sanest scenario. This would certainly extend the election period. But that itself would not resolve the crisis. A combination of two or three outcomes is required here. One, implementing the long overdue critical reforms to recover the trust, at least to a minimum level, in the election process. This includes reforming the Election Commission, the caretaker government, and the administration. On the last one, policies could be devised whereby the returning officers and the assistant returning officers, given the current nature of the politicization of the administration, are selected from a pool of names provided by the two major political alliances, and distributed equally throughout the country. Two, ensuring the participation of HM Ershad or his party, the JP. And three, and this is a subject less talked about, policies are to be devised where political parties would not feel threatened (politically as well as physically) if they fail to win the elections. This is particularly true for the relatively small partners within the alliances. Jamaat, JP and LDP are good examples.

Secondly, the enactment of a state of emergency. This is the first of the two worst scenarios. Democratic election under a state of emergency is a misnomer to say the least. Finally, the second of the two worst scenarios. Going alone and holding one-sided election in the midst of protest, violence, and bloodshed. This is as much a problem before the election, and surely on the election day, as it is after the election. If this comes about then people would suffer. The economy would lose its momentum. Key institutions, including public education, would be paralyzed. Dubious elements would end up running neighbourhoods and mahallas with muscles, machetes, and mortars. At the same time, the short-time political benefits for the one-sided victors would cease to exist for them in the long-term both at home and abroad, something from which they would have a hard time recovering.

Still, I hold my faith on human actions, on the street as elsewhere. In this light, and as Article 8 para 1A would have us reformulate, let the "act of God," at least for once, stand for a boon and not a curse!

Imtiaz Ahmed is Professor of International Relations, University of Dhaka.