Now, I have serious issues with the "war" metaphor that our top brass loves to invoke. But let me hold my tongue on that for another day. For now, it's safe to say that the anti-corruption drive has been a success. It has exposed the gargantuan extent to which BNP leaders looted the country. It has put away some of them behind bars. It has recovered some stolen stuff, and promises much more in future.

While some battles have been won, the war itself, the bigger enterprise, is in peril. This enterprise is to restore trust and fairness in public democratic institutions. And the real danger to that is not from anti-government conspiracies; it's in the government's fondness for making quick decisions behind closed doors.

Sure, many of these decisions have been exciting and entertaining: midnight arrests of politicians; the decree to submit wealth statements in 72 hours; the freezing of bank accounts; the demolition of billboards and slums; and the threats of tough, decisive action against hoarding.

But each of these has proven to be a problem later on.

The Anti-Corruption Commission had to extend the 72-hour deadline, which the ACC secretary had initially vowed was not negotiable.

The High Court has begun to order the government to not freeze accounts of certain individuals. It has already declared half of the high-profile detentions to be without legal basis. Expect more such verdicts.

The government was forced to withdraw its demolition drive after slum-dwellers began to resist and even fight back the black-clad police and the bulldozers.

Most recently, the government had to retract its tough stance against hoarding and fuzzy business practices, after it realized that prices have been climbing too high and too fast. Although the CTG would like to think that pro-BNP businesses are trying to punish it, the more likely cause is that supply has simply decreased because few entrepreneurs are willing to take risks.

Indeed, one may be forgiven to think that despite all the drama, the backdrop for economic and political risk has not changed yet.

For honest businesses, earlier there was chadabaji (extortion), now risk of arbitrary seizure by new laws. For honest political citizens (yes, they exist), earlier there was unilateral decision-making by party leaders; now there is unilateral decision-making by a highly centralized caretaker authority.

So CTG finds itself in an interesting dilemma: despite its strongly pro-investment rhetoric and open embrace for foreign ventures, it has had little actual success in stimulating investment, either domestic or foreign. Imports are falling, as are banking transactions including LCs, and there are hushed worries among some bankers about an impending financial crisis.

Wasn't the anti-corruption drive supposed to reassure business?

The problem is not the drive itself, but the uncertainty inherent in passing laws in an arbitrary manner. Such laws have been plentiful in the past two months. They have all been made without any transparency whatsoever. And with little to no public warning they have been imposed on businesses, with draconian punishment for non-compliance.

A similar situation looms in our political arena. Just like it is not possible to spur investment without ensuring predictability in the business environment, it is also not possible to spur democratic politics without ensuring the fundamental rights that forms the basis of a liberal political environment.

Decisions that affect the basic rights of every citizen have been made in an extremely non-transparent way, and enforced by an authority that is unaccountable to the public. Not only that, the CTG has been increasingly closing off a citizen's recourse to the judiciary against arbitrary action by the state.

The most controversial provisions of the SPA (Special Powers Act) have been revived, giving the police the authority to not just detain but conduct summary trials outside regular legal confines. The ACC had earlier restricted citizens' options to appeal its decisions in a higher court. Now it wants the power to arrest without warrant anyone it suspects and then deny bail, bypassing the courts system. The newly created National Security Council will likely be given sweeping powers to also detain and prosecute people, again bypassing the judiciary.

These decisions, and the way they are being made, may earn the CTG convenient shortcuts in the near term, but they are damaging the prospects of establishing a political environment that is transparent, accountable, accessible, and committed to protecting citizens from the abuse of power. Losing that "war" is a risk not worth taking just for the sake of shortcuts.

Dr. Jalal Alamgir is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.