Politics, with a façade of democracy created by an elected parliament, but devoid of the minimal norms and values of democratic culture and behaviour, brought the country to the precipice. Only the declaration of emergency, and the take-over by a second caretaker government within eleven weeks, prevented the impending disaster.

If this sounds hyperbolic, recall where we stood as the preparation for election to the ninth national parliament got underway. No one in the country and outside, except the politicians who had just vacated the seats of power, believed that a free and fair election could be held, or that the essential conditions for such an election existed.

The Election Commission failed even to prepare a credible voters' list. It was amply evident from the nominations, which were submitted to and accepted by the EC, that "muscle and money" would decide the election results. It was also clear that the same motley crowd, whichever party they belonged to, that had collectively pushed the country to the edge of disaster was going to return to parliament.

The CTG, armed with emergency powers, has been unearthing the causes of degeneration and decay that have spread deep into the vital organs of the state and government. The daily meal on our tables has become unsafe, as the seizure of warehouses with tainted and rotten grains, and detection in the market of fish and fruits treated with poisonous chemicals, show.

Supplies for relief of disaster victims ended up in the homes of the ruling coalition bigwigs. The angle of individual interest and that of the ruling coterie was supreme in all decisions of the state, big or small, totally disregarding the harm caused to national interest.

Just consider the stories in the media on the shenanigans in contracts for power generation, gas exploration, Barapukuria coal mine development, management of Biman, submarine cable connection for digital communication, regulating the telephone, development of the Chittagong port -- the list is long.

The authority and conduct of the highest tiers of major state institutions, which form the pillars of a modern and democratic government, became widely suspect. Political manipulation put unqualified people, and even frauds, in the highest positions in the judiciary; and erratic decisions, to put it charitably, were given from the highest judicial bodies.

The Public Service Commission (PSC) had, traditionally, a reputation for screening and recruiting the servants of the republic with objectivity and fairness. Allegations were rampant lately about corruption in conducting examinations and selecting candidates by the PSC.

The norms for recruitment, placement and promotion in the Civil Service were replaced by the political loyalty test, thus allowing unlimited tolerance of incompetence and dishonesty. The law-enforcing agencies became tools for partisan ends.

The much-heralded Anti-Corruption Commission sat idle for over two years; it is difficult to argue that this was not by design. Political loyalty became the criterion for appointments at all levels in public universities, which destroyed conditions for scholarly pursuits. Private universities were allowed to be established, and to function without enforcement of government's own rules and quality criteria.

The responsibility for the state of affairs described weighs heavily on the coalition regime that had ruled for the last five years. But there is plenty of blame to go around. Since the memorable popular uprising of 1990 that toppled the decade-and-half-long authoritarian rule and restored parliamentary democracy, it has been downhill for democracy ever since.

Dynastic leadership, reinforced by a tendency to glorify personalities, hampered the growth and inculcation of a democratic culture in the major political parties. Political parties failed to develop and follow a democratic process for electing leaders at all levels, be transparent about funding sources, give a say to the constituencies in selecting parliamentary candidates, and foster new and younger leadership. They have not found it necessary to live by their election pledges, or give an explanation for failing to fulfill the promises.

Key measures for building the democratic polity, which actually were adopted as election pledges by the major parties, remained unfulfilled for 15 years in the watch of both major political coalitions in power.

Cases in point -- separation of judiciary from the executive, an effective Election Commission, an independent and functioning Anti-Corruption Commission, adoption of freedom of information laws, guaranteeing independence of the public media, ensuring neutrality of the law-enforcing agencies and the civil administration, direct and substantial representation of women in the parliament, establishing effective local government structures, and protecting educational institutions from partisan politics.

The present caretaker government has managed to do more on some of these items in weeks than what political regimes did in 15 years.

An emergency regime, by definition, cannot continue indefinitely. It must have an exit strategy, and the public has the right to be taken into confidence about the exit plan. The political parties also have the right to ask about the timetable for restarting the democratic process which has been put on hold.

By the same token, the public has the right to demand from the political parties, especially those who aspire to take the helm of the government, to know about their plans and programs for reforming and cleansing themselves, and their timetable for accomplishing these changes.

Politics as usual, that would put us back on the path to a failed state or, at best, a banana republic, must not continue. The responsible political parties must provide the roadmap for new politics that would nurture democracy in the country and in their own affairs. This includes the new party that Dr. Yunus plans to lead.

Dr. Manzoor Ahmed is Director, Institute of Educational Development at Brac University.