The irony was that only three years after a near epic struggle for emancipation of a vast chunk of humanity, committed democrats lost their composure and balance and unabashedly started a chorus of eulogizing an out and out autocratic dispensation.

The mega tragedy of August 1975 made things complicated, as politics was made difficult by quarters that were no respecter of democracy. The latter half of the seventies saw democracy of a sort, that somehow limped on until early 1982 when it was given a decent burial. The eighties was a time when the struggle for reviving democracy acquired a new meaning, and a rejuvenated polity ultimately succeeded in ousting an autocratic regime.

In 1991, there was rising expectation that the virtues of democracy would be appreciated, and the potentials of the nation would be rightly tapped in a democratic environment. The new democrats, however, proved to be tougher taskmasters than the men in uniform. The bewildered nation witnessed a farcical election in February 1996, after which the people's power forced the government to abdicate.

From 1996 to 2001, there was a democratic government, but dialogue and discussion between politicians on both sides of the divide was never a strong point. Instead, the nation had to bear bouts of acrimonious deliberations, both in and out of parliament, bordering on outrageous slander and calumny. Indeed, many wondered how Bangladeshis, the proud owners of a lofty constitution, could be so foul-mouthed in political discourse. Decency and decorum apparently took leave of us.

From 2001 to 2006, there were renewed efforts to politicize all vital state institutions, which effectively blurred the demarcation between right and wrong, and Bangladeshis became the prisoners of a perilously polarized polity. There were shameless efforts to settle all issues beyond the accepted forum of arbitration, and financial propriety was nobody's concern. National resources were for the looting, and the opposing political forces were at each other's throats.

The purposeful raising of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges, and the patently irregular assumption of the office of Chief Adviser by the president, put all sensible people to shame. It was under these circumstances that the army-backed caretaker government had to assume charge.

The question that now bothers an enraged polity is, how soon can we return to a democratic dispensation? The alternate query is, should we revert to the imperfections of the 1991-2006 years? Some are asking if we could make do with a little less democracy for the present in order to clean the house. The cynics say that we in Bangladesh have to acclimatize ourselves to the democracy deficits, and wait patiently for better days to come.

The staying power of democracy varies from country to country. The timing of political breakdown depends upon the strength of political institutions and the severity of economic crisis. Collapse may not overtake a country marked by economic failure if the political institutions have acquired durability through age and traditions; nor may it engulf a nation whose economic growth makes up for the weakness of its political institutions.

The danger facing Bangladesh is that it combines economic under-performance with fragile institutions, and a constitution which is looked upon by the politicians as being so pliant that it can be bent to any whim or caprice of the ruling clan. Added to that is a scenario in which ignorance, incompetence and dishonesty are no disqualifications for high public office, either at the ministerial rank or elsewhere.

The question that agitates many concerned citizens is whether our quality of life should continue to suffer because of the denial of basic human rights and civil liberties that are an integral part of our fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution. The deficits of democracy that were so visible in the yesteryears, particularly between 1991-2006, do not create the hope that a quick recovery out of the polluted waters of our public life, and the slime and sludge of a corrupted economy, would be possible by simply reverting to pre- January 11 situation.

We have not harboured those objectives that push upright men and women to wander beyond the safe provision of personal gratifications. We have not permitted institutions to grow, and, as a result, we witness a political temper that presses partisan advantage to the bitter end. Our political culture has not fostered the habit of understanding and respecting the other side. We have not acclimatized ourselves to the attributes of consent and compromise that are the hallmarks of mature political societies. The spirit of moderation has not prevailed and, as such, our society has degenerated into divisions and hatred has replaced goodwill.

The change from accident of birth to acceptance on caliber cannot be brought about if people continue to behave in a servile manner. The present groups of politicians, with their pretensions to infallibility, do not wish to become wise. They do not believe that an independent judiciary is the very heart of the republic, and that the foundation of a democracy, the source of its perennial vitality, lies in that great institution. An overnight behavioural change in our politicians would not be a practical wish.

If the electoral politics of Bangladesh has to be cleaned, then the corrupt politicians, including those who have not been apprehended thus far, have to be convicted and, consequentially, debarred from participating in the next election. This is a huge task, demanding commitment and competence from the Anti-Corruption Commission and a proactive attitude from the entire judiciary that has shown worrying cracks in the recent past. Therefore, if meaningful deterrent action is not ensured in the next few months then progress towards desired democratization will be halted.

It has to be remembered that the accused politicians have to be proved guilty in the apex court before being declared ineligible for contesting the election. Trials cannot be held in contravention of statutory, time-bound directions. Participation, or exclusion, of suspected corrupt politicians in the next election will have a crucial impact on the quality of democracy. It would be interesting to see if the deficits of democracy register an increase or show signs of improvement by making it difficult for the bad hats to stay the course.

For ultimate adjudication and arbitration leading to the resolution of conflicts the judiciary has to be the true guardian. For democracy to take firm root in our body politic the cracks in the judiciary have to be substantially remedied. This would be a slow process, although the clamor for return to democratic activities is gathering pace. Proactive courts characterized by judicial activism will surely lessen the deficits of democracy.

The services of the republic need to be lifted from the deep morass, and tolerably de-politicized to ensure public confidence in the credibility of the electoral process. Screening and axing wherever necessary has to be effected without any further delay, to strike fear and ward off the ill-effects of a lackadaisical scenario in the bureaucracy.

A large part of our population, the public servants, are still the most visible leaders conveying the mood and resolve of the establishment. For democracy deficits to go on the downslide, their stands and services are extremely significant.

The media has to grasp the actual ground situation by factual reporting, and must not raise public expectations in an unrealistic manner. It must not resort to superlatives, whether appreciating or depreciating. It has to display the pragmatism of correctly understanding the depth of the deviations, and the feasibility of taking remedial actions. High hopes or despondency will be equally harmful.

Politics has never been a particularly edifying activity. It has often belittled greatness and corrupted goodness. Nobody expects politics to be synonymous with ethics. However, there should be efforts to grant the highest recognition to ability, knowledge and integrity for democracy to survive in Bangladesh.

For our democracy deficits to gradually lessen and disappear, the political parties have to make the crucial choice between absolute power on one hand and the restraints of legality and the authority of tradition on the other.

It has to decide on whether to constitute a moral association maintained by duty, or a physical one kept together by force. They have to say whether executive action violative of the rule of law has to be tolerated, and if the balance between legislature, executive and the judiciary has to be rudely shaken.

We would do well to remember the following saying of Justice Frankfurter: "Democracy is always a beckoning goal, not a safe harbour. For freedom is an unremitting endeavour, never a final achievement."

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist of The Daily Star.