They have become the focus of attention of the senior party members as well as the people, insofar as reform of the political parties is concerned. Whether that should be the case is a question that one would like to put, along with a corollary as to how the two party bosses would acquit themselves under the changed circumstances.

The crisis, or predicament, that they face stems from the reform-wave, which is surging in the minds of the leadership of the major political parties. It is very heartening to note a concordance of views among the parties on the need for change. Detractors see it as a mechanism for self-survival, but we feel comforted to see them seized with the issue, devoting their time to come up with the best rules of business for their respective parties.

Political reform, with more bias towards reform of political parties, is a popular demand. It bears repetition that the people are not willing to allow the politicians to run their parties and the country as they had done so far.

The near autocratic manner in which the country had been run, particularly in the last five years, was the result of absolute power residing in the hands of the party chief, who either lacked the sagacity to differentiate between the government and the party, and between the party and the country, or deliberately diluted the difference for self-aggrandizement.

The country was treated as a personal fiefdom; power was used and misused at the pleasure of the chief and the cohorts. The consequence is so painfully clear in front of the nation.

What is disquieting is that none in the parties could manage to gather enough moral courage to stand up against the ills that were willfully committed against the interest of the country. One wishes that the gusto with which some of the party senior leaders are talking about the imperative for party reform, particularly the need for collective decision-making, had been shown sooner.

It is good to see the politicians, for a change, responding to the demands of the people and of the times. There are all the positive aspects of it and, happily, nothing negative. However, one hopes that the need for change, and the urgency demonstrated by their actions to bring in the changes, are motivated by their conviction in the rationale rather than by any extraneous influence. Otherwise the changes might only be cosmetic, an expedient only, and may not be permanent.

However, clearly noticeable are the two distinct trends within the major parties, that are likely to determine in the long run how and what reforms are brought about in them. While the positive trend is the consensus among the top leadership on the need for change, what is perhaps disconcerting is the intra-party difference on how and what changes are to be brought in.

The rift in this matter is evidently very acute within the BNP, whereas within the AL it is very subtle but nonetheless palpable. And the difference relates more to the "how," including whether the two party chiefs will be taken on board in the process of implementation of those changes.

As for the specifics, although nothing has been made official as yet, reportedly there are as many as six reforms that the BNP reformists are seeking to bring in, whereas the AL proposals are almost thrice that. Some of them relate to the decision making process, while one (in the case of the AL) put an age bar on the members of the working committee.

There is also the provision to de-link the party from the government, in that one cannot, at the same time, wear a party hat and a government hat. These are very welcome developments, indicative of the growing realisation that the parties must conform to the requirements of the times.

However, one wonders whether the reforms in the political parties should be predicated entirely on the future role of the two leaders. The discussions are revolving entirely around the two when the focus should really be on the reforms in the political parties.

While leaders are important factors far more important are the issues that influence the future character of our polity. And in determining it the parties must not fail to assess their role so far. It was dysfunctional to say the least that had brought democracy almost to a collapse.

The question that is being asked is what are the options for the two leaders, and many have expressed their apprehensions whether, and how, if at all, they can survive the spate of proposed changes being contemplated in the BNP and AL where there is a growing consensus among a large segment of reformists on the need to clip the absolute power of the party head and introduce a system where the party will be run by collective decisions.

So what is the political future of the two ladies? It should not escape their notice that no one is indispensable, and contrary to what some scholars say, new situation will always throw up new leaders; "cometh the time cometh the man" (or woman) is an old adage that holds true even today.

For a start it seems that the two are either incapable or unwilling to critically assess their performances while in power. A good leader is one who is capable of not only self criticism but prepared to accept mistakes and rectify those. Their recent interviews with The Daily Star convey only too clearly that admitting mistakes is not one of their fortes.

However, it seems that they have not failed to read the writing on the wall and have, perhaps willy-nilly, agreed to go along with the idea of reforms. And they are even willing to put up with the dilution of their absolute authority. While it is for the parties to decide how they will involve the two leaders in their future working, how they fare politically in future would depend on several factors that are entirely in their control.

First, it will depend on how they read the situation, and adapt and adjust their position; how they see the needs of the times, and whether they take a proactive role in the changes. This is what we refer to as situational leadership. That, or otherwise risk being discarded. And both seem to have realised that there is no alternative to change.

If it is a matter of political survival, it can be addressed if they take note of the warning that The Daily Star made in one of its recent editorials in respect of the political parties -- change or perish from the political world.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The daily Star.