They harbour criminals and sponsor cronyism. Their hatred for each other has debilitated our democracy. If the move is successful, it will have a huge impact on our politics. We need to understand the consequences of eliminating the two from politics.

Both Hasina and Khaleda were prime ministers and contributed to the progress of democracy in the country, staging anti-autocracy movement against General Ershad. Hasina ruled the country for one term, and Khaleda for two terms.

I have always harboured a notion that Hasina and Khaleda were personally honest, but were misguided and misled by corrupt elements in their inner circles. I also have an impression that Hasina's term was way better than Khaleda's second term as prime minister.

Hasina's government failed to maintain law and order, and her relatives who are involved in Awami League politics, and some party leaders, misused power and made fortunes. The telecom sector, the share market, and law and order were the zones of disaster.

Her government also failed to take action against religious fundamentalists. But her government's performance in maintaining stability in the prices of essentials, managing a post-flood crisis, and reducing ethnic conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, was outstanding. Hasina was also successful in keeping her immediate family members from abusing state power and money.

The BNP began its second term with a vow to take action against the alleged corruption of Hasina's government. But the second term BNP was a total disaster. Corruption, killing, misuse of power, and the rise of religious fanaticism, broke all previous records.

The parallel government run by Khaleda's son, Tarique, from the notorious Hawa Bhobon added a new dimension to our political culture. Khaleda's government also failed to probe the alleged corruption charges against Hasina. And finally, Khaleda's desperate attempt to regain power through a caretaker government led by her party's yes-men was about to destroy the whole democratic system.

If the AL-led opposition had not challenged the yes-men's government, our democracy would certainly be in disarray. All these strengthened my conviction that Hasina was not corrupt. Otherwise, given the hatred our political parties have for each other, the BNP would have done everything to jail Hasina.

Now the present caretaker government, which has identified corruption as the number one problem, has found allegations of corruption against many politicians, including Hasina.

It has brought charges against many politicians and arrested some of them. The law enforcement agencies have remanded and interrogated some of the arrestees to learn about their associates and the sources of their money.

During interrogation, AL leaders Jalil, Selim and Quader, and BNP leaders Babar and Falu, allegedly told the investigators that their supreme leaders entertained various corruption schemes.

Babar and Falu related how Khaleda made fortunes for herself and her family, and Jalil and Quader revealed how Hasina demanded money from some businessmen, most of whom are directly linked with her party, for enriching the party coffer. A few businessmen have come forward and filed extortion charges against Hasina.

The so-called confessions are available on CDs and on the Internet. After hearing the confessions, you can't wait to ask some questions. Do the investigators have a magic wand which makes the suspects so easily and meticulously confess their involvement in illegal money making?

How did these confessions become available on CDs? How true are they? We don't know the answers to these questions, but we do know that during an interrogation only two parties are involved -- interrogators and suspects.

No other people have access to that setting. The government cannot and, I am sure, has not officially released the confessions because they are useless until the court accepts them as true.

It is well known that people make confessions under duress, and to avoid harsh treatment during interrogations. And they can rightfully deny them before the court, and can even complain against the method of interrogation.

Confessions are only useful for collecting further evidence against suspects. It is dangerous to treat people as corrupt just on the basis of the confessions which they gave during interrogation. If we do so, we run the risk of influencing the court towards making biased judgments.

We Bangladeshis are, by nature, suspicious about the honesty of the people in power. We are rightly so, because we have seen many people becoming filthy rich by misusing state power and money. But I think we need to wait and see.

We need to leave it to the court, not the interrogators, to decide who is corrupt and who is not. For the sake of establishing the rule of law, the court must decide the corruption charges without any external influence.

If politicians like Hasina and Khaleda are found guilty by the court, they must pay the penalty, and they must lose their right to remain in politics. But if they are removed from politics by undemocratic means, they will be able to generate public sympathy in their favour by showing that their rights of citizenship were being violated.

And the political histories of many developing countries, such as Iran and the Philippines, suggest that when popular leaders are cut off from their political bases through undemocratic means they make heroic comebacks.

Many people in the AL and BNP, and in the present government, believe that the absence of Hasina and Khaleda from politics will cure our political system. But is it really that simple?

Let's ponder for a moment. There are people in the BNP and AL who are now talking loudly about reform; I just wonder, where they were before. They either benefited from the leadership of the two ladies, or did not have guts to challenge them.

We also have reason to believe that they are demanding reform to save themselves from the government's anti-corruption drive. Whatever the reason for the demand is, it is true that our political parties need reform to establish the mechanisms to ensure the practice of democracy in party forums.

We can't deny that the two ladies are enormously popular among their party workers, and can sway workers' opinions the way they want. They are also symbols of unity in their parties. It would be much easier if they lead the reform of their parties.

But their elimination from politics may break up their parties, creating a chaotic political environment where a third force may gain political power. However, it is not yet clear who will be that force.

It may be the religious fundamentalists, who have created many social institutions across the country over the last few years, or a new right wing party made up of splinter groups from the two parties.

Nobody can guarantee that the new force will do better than the two big parties did, unless we establish a democratic system and institutions. As I have said many times, it's easy for a person or a party to exert a lot of due and undue pressure on our society because we have not developed democratic institutions as yet.

I, along with many others, was hopeful of seeing a new beginning when the present caretaker government started initiatives to build the institutions -- an independent Anti-corruption Commission, judiciary, and Election Commission. But these initiatives seem to have slowed down.

An independent Election Commission can deal with the reform of the political parties, and an independent Anti-corruption Commission along with an independent judiciary can take care of corrupt elements. The government should expedite the efforts for building these fundamental institutions to keep our hope alive for a truly democratic society.

A.J.M. Shafiul Alam Bhuiyan teaches in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism at the University of Dhaka.