Suppose, in the name of issuing a tender for a much needed power station, they were skimming money which went to the offshore banks of certain top officials (many of them are now in jail, God bless the caretaker government); these officials, their cronies and families are also people.

Opposition leaders organised huge political rallies, and fought street battles to unseat the government. And, of course, they did everything for the people. And when certain television channels featured "ordinary people" in their various chat shows, or interviewed them on the streets, they (the people) criticised both the then ruling party for corruption and misrule and the opposition parties for creating disorder.

Even before all these political upheavals began, I used to be somewhat puzzled by the pronouncements of my NGO activist friends claimed that they were working for the people. And again, when "people" speak through television channels they do not seem to be highly impressed with the NGOs either, and some even want "reforms" in NGOs demanding that they should be accountable. Accountable to whom? People, I guess.

As students of sociology, we often find the word "people" unsatisfactory, if not disturbing. Check any fat sociology introductory text, you will most likely not find the word "people" in the index.

So who are the people? Why is everyone trying to do something for the people where the people are not keen on being helped one way or the other. The people -- it seems -- want to be left alone. But how do we know what the people want? But, before that, who are the people? The UN Declaration of Human Rights does not talk about people.

However, the US constitution begins with the statement: "We the people of the United States..." Here, people referred to everyone who lived in the United States of America, except the American Indians, the Blacks, and perhaps all the women.

In national constitutions, people refers to the entire nation -- all the people living within the national boundaries, and sometimes beyond. But again, in practice, many remain excluded. It would be useful to keep in mind the problematic nature of the word "people." When the communist regimes claimed that they were practicing "people's democracy," they indeed denied most of the minimum conditions of democracy -- again in the name of the people.

We have good reasons for being sceptical about the people. In society we have classes, status groups, professionals, but not people -- it is a vague concept and we are better of without it.

What about power? Politics is all about power. When two or more political parties compete, they compete over access to power. Power comes with privileges and prestige. When the opposition parties, in late 2006, fought in unity and defeated the conspiracy for holding a sham election many people felt relieved, but some people who were going to win the fabricated elections were very disappointed.

When all the major political parties came together to oppose the planned political scam, it was clear that it was not just a power play between the two rival political parties but that something greater was at stake.

So when the latest caretaker government took over, it was not simply a group of people interested in holding political power. Many thought (and continue to think) that this will benefit the people. How do we know that? Was there any systematic opinion poll carried out? No social scientist can take the phone-in surveys of the newspapers or television stations, or opinions of "random" (in fact, quite biased sample) office goers in the morning, as scientific.

In fact, such pollings are deceptive. Many people, including talk show hosts, often start mouthing the same phrase that becomes the phrase of the day. One such phrase of the day is "the two ladies." Sometimes people use these phrases unreflectively.

Politics has a lot to do with perception. Most common people, the average bloke if you will, have some ideas about something or some people or some leaders. They are often too busy dealing with the everyday problems of life to analyse the political situation. A mother from Malibagh taking her daughter to tuition, braving afternoon traffic, or a rickshaw puller in Bagerhat worrying about his son's medical treatment, or a nurse complaining about rising prices of onions, or a fisherman worrying about a new government regulation does not have much time to analyse politics, people or power.

In the absence of hard and reasoned analysis, perception becomes a useful recourse. Sometimes these perceptions are based on facts, but more often on the discussions they watch on television, or the newspaper headlines they read, or what they hear from their significant others.

Some of our perceptions are shaped by our deep-rooted prejudices. Yet, in electoral democracy, these perceptions matter a lot. Perception based politics must be replaced by politics based on facts, and here opinion makers can play an important role.

If we are serious about democracy, we need to start a vigorous discussion about some of the everyday concepts we use -- most importantly, people and power. Politicians, journalists, opinion makers in general, and the citizens of Bangladesh must be aware that a people-focused politics leads to populism, not democracy.

Populism empowers the politicians; democracy empowers the people. A good strategy for the politicians will be to focus on the ideals of truth and justice and leave the people alone.

The author is a sociologist at Zayed University, Abu Dhabi.