Western political thinkers would have us believe that patrimonial personalist regimes are more readily accepted in most third world countries mainly because of extreme poverty that afflicts the overwhelming majority of the population of these countries -- who are used to looking towards divinity or His "representative" in the form of a dictator for relief.

Some of these leaders received immediate acceptance from the people because they led the war of independence from the colonial masters. Some, like Fidel Castro who militarily defeated corrupt Batista regime, were credited by the people with introducing a superior brand of ideology than what they had been preached at for long.

But once having captured power, leaders like Castro did not chose the democratic path and denied "social coordination" e.g. the right to political and economic autonomy to the people in the name of egalitarian distribution of national wealth.

History of many third world countries is replete with the presence of such dictators. Some conservative historians believed that since communist totalitarian states had been

ideologically inspired and had utopian overtones, the disappearance of communism would usher in Western capitalist democracy, which necessarily did not happen.

The Failed States Index 2007 just published by the Fund for Peace ranks Bangladesh at 16 (Pakistan at 12 and Burma at 14) out of 177 countries surveyed where the risk of failure is running high. Of the 12 indicators of states' vulnerability Bangladesh has been accused of persecution of religious minorities and also of incapability to deal with environmental disaster.

According to the study the world's weakest states are not just a danger to themselves but also threaten peace and stability of other countries.

The argument for a pause in our quest for democracy is due to the reluctance of many people to replace one group of kleptocrats with another. Since nature abhors a vacuum, the elected rulers have to be replaced by non-elected group of people whose competence and honesty are widely trusted.

The problem in such a solution, even for a short period, is that no one can give guarantee that the non-elected group of people lacking democratic accountability would not fall into the trap of Actonian precept that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The recent mudslide in Chittagong that killed more than one hundred persons would not have been possible if the so-called elected governments over decades had not been either collusive or uncaring about the massive deforestation and unauthorised cutting of hills that led to this man-made disaster.

The aggrieved people without food and shelter in this period of incessant rain can now only look to the government for succour. Similarly, the daily accounts of alleged extortion and corruption on an unimaginable scale might not inspire the people of Bangladesh to go for early elections for a putative democratic form of government.

Indubitably, our foreign friends mean us well when they at every available opportunity give us lectures on the value of democracy. It is, however, not understood whether their well intentioned lectures are given from their experiences in their own countries where democracy had taken firm roots a long time back or they have taken into consideration dynastic politics and vote buying practices Bangladeshis have been used to since our liberation.

Professor Emeritus Robert Scalapino of Harvard University writes:"Political institutionalisation enables a movement from the erratic practices and arbitrary decisions stemming from a high dependence on personalised rule (the success of institutionalisation and) reduces the likelihood of abrupt drastic change in basic structures since change is made possible in legal, evolutionary manner."

Since the extent of institutionalisation largely determines the viability of any particular regime it would, perhaps, be advisable to create the foundations of institutions supportive of democracy instead of mimetic adaptation of new practices, regardless of its value, for which we may not yet be ready.

The chaos that followed the fall of the Soviet empire has been a lesson for the Chinese leaders who understood the necessity of a strong central authority for the stability of the state.

Accordingly, the dismantling by Deng Xiaoping of Mao Tse Tung's economic and cultural hegemony was not followed by dismantling of Maoist political system. China's enviable economic progress is the global talk of the town despite the massacre at the Tianamen Square of progressive elements in Chinese society.

The argument proffered here is not to follow the Chinese example of political system but to be clear about the targets to be achieved and our ability to achieve those targets within a specified time frame.

It is true that growth of institutions should be evolutionary for their permanence and not revolutionary as has been seen after the Islamic Revolution in Iran which was then supported by almost all the people being unaware of the Islamist "election trap" that provides a one way street for people as the hurriedly held national referendum on the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran establishing clerical rule has shown.

One, however, wonders as to why given the present demographic structure of the Iranian population, where majority of the people were born in post-revolutionary Iran and reportedly have little respect for either the concept of the superiority of clerical rule or sacrosanctity of the Iran-Iraq War, have not, as expected by the Americans (e.g. General Zinni who commanded American troops in the region) risen up against the government.

Among the reasons, one can cite generous governmental expenditure on education, health, and other social sectors, as well as the success of the government in gathering popular support for their cause on the nuclear issue and against Western "intrusion" in Iran's sovereign right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

It has been argued that the ability of the communicative action of the poverty stricken people who lack the ability for instrumental actions necessary for economic self-preservation would not be very strong.

As democracy demands implicit moral and political integrity, it may be advisable for countries like Bangladesh to wait a while (period being indeterminate but not exceeding reasonable time) for institutions to mature before participatory democracy is resorted to.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.