Today, the interim caretaker government and those who support their efforts have become core stakeholders, principally responsible for not only the holding of a free, fair and credible election but also the creation of a correct and acceptable environment for this purpose. This has necessitated paying of attention to a host of problems -- some apparent and others implied.

We have a situation where abuse of power, dynastic political ambitions, corruption, and many other malpractices have literally destroyed and eaten away the fabric of good political governance. This is disappointing to say the least. Every day, when we open our newspaper in the morning, we are confronted with details that are most unpalatable. The electronic media also provides us with accounts that are simply unacceptable in any civilized society.

Consequently, it has been most interesting to read recent accounts of initiatives being undertaken within the two more important political parties by senior members of their respective political leaderships. I wonder what these honourable politicians were doing over the last five years. They were probably visiting Alice in Wonderland, completely oblivious of the need for reforms in the truest sense of the term.

Some of them have indicated to the media that they were unable to address the incongruities within their political parties because of the absence of participatory leadership and emphasis on dynastic informal socio-metric overlays. It has also been suggested by a few others that they had referred to such inadequacies within their respective political party systems, but that such references were overlooked and set aside by autocratic leaderships. Many of them have also stated that their respective party leaders had the habit of unilateral decision making without proper and expected collective discussion among the leadership.

This might have happened, but then, why did they not protest it earlier? That would obviously have been the right thing to do. Instead of sycophancy, they could have resigned from their party leadership structure if their appropriate ideas for reform were discarded without consideration. In such a situation, some of them might have also signified their protest by publishing their ideas in print. We could have read them. That would have been useful in modulating public opinion. I fail to understand whey they did not undertake such a course of action. Was it a absence of courage or lack of deep conviction?

Nevertheless, what we have today are many interesting ideas. Better late, I say, than never. Implementation of some of them will greatly facilitate reform within the existing political structure of the two major political parties within the country. It will also encourage the minor parties to take necessary steps.

This will generally make the political and electoral processes more meaningful and functional also. Particularly assist in the decision making and selection processes within the party. In turn, that will reduce action being based on unilateral or dynastic considerations. In the long run, reform will strengthen the evolution of democracy, transparency and accountability.

What we have today is a crisis of serious proportions and that has to be resolved. We have to create a society as envisaged by our martyrs in 1971. It has to be corruption-free. Within that matrix all citizens will have to have equal opportunities. Within this political arrangement there has to be scope for exercising freedom of choice within the registered political party and possibility for promotion within the party structure on the basis of merit and ability to solve problems -- not family relationship. It probably sounds idealistic and also naive, but I believe that this process of democratisation can be achieved.

We have to remember that mere voters ID cards and correct electoral rolls will not usher in democracy or solve the problems of misgovernance. There is more to it than just these two factors.

The Election Commission for quite some time has undertaken several steps. They have seriously initiated the collection of electoral data, re-drafting of existing laws pertaining to elections and the registration of voters and issue of voters ID cards. All concerned are attempting these with due care and diligence. The litmus test will however come at the time of the next election. It is then that political parties will have to stand up and be counted as to whether they have played their part (selection of candidates and other formalities associated with elections) according to the rules of the game. Failure to have conformed to the expected ideals will lead us again down the path of disaster.

It is a question of mindset. I am referring here to the need for a change in attitude within political parties themselves. They have to understand that they can profit from some of the suggestions made by the Election Commission with regard to nomination and selection of electoral candidates, registration of political parties, and decentralisation of powers and responsibilities. If these measures can be followed, it will greatly enhance an accountable, transparent and pro-active relationship between the nominated candidate (who is expected to be a resident for most of the time in his constituency) and his constituents. It will also reduce the existing habit of nominating questionable candidates as a money-spinner for the party as well as a source of gain for some of the more influential members of the party leadership. This will also lessen the chance of manipulation.

In the past we have seen disgraceful examples of representatives from the business community obtaining nominations on the basis of voluntary or involuntary contributions to the party or to certain members of its leadership. During the last parliament 70 per cent of the MPs from the ruling Alliance had business interests. Consequently, it was not strange that corruption and under-hand dealings should have found special status during the past regime. It is this approach that has to change. In this context, it would probably be very worthwhile to give serious consideration to the 'No vote' possibility, where an election result in a constituency will stand nullified if more than 50 per cent 'No votes' are cast signalling disapproval of the voters with the given list of candidates.

I similarly welcome three other proposals from the Election Commission that are presently under consideration.

The first two relate to the delinking of political parties from their front organisations and the maintenance of branches abroad. These factors have unnecessarily complicated our domestic industrial and educational environment and also at times tarnished the image of our country. There has been more than one instance where law and order personnel from the host community had to be called in to stop open fighting among factions of the same political party and also between representatives of different political parties. There have also been embarrassing situations over the politicisation in the observance of important national occasions.

I firmly believe that our expatriate community should be given the right to vote. They can register for this purpose in our different diplomatic missions. They can then, like the expatriate population of many other countries, exercise their right of vote on election day in the different diplomatic missions or use the postal ballot to express their opinion and political preference. Expatriates are playing an important role in our economic development through their remittances and they must also have a say in the political process. There should not however be front organisations of different political parties abroad. Everyone holding a Bangladeshi passport should deem himself/herself to be just that and nothing else in terms of open political affiliation.

The third is regarding the imposition of a time frame before NGO officials and bureaucrats can seek candidatures in elections. Many have suggested that such a restriction will hinder the availability of expertise and experience within the political process. I do not agree with them. I have seen many cases of personal ambition being the cause of poor prioritisation in development expenditure. That will be averted.

There are many ideas of reforms that are presently under scrutiny. Let them be discussed, openly and collectively. For this we need the official lifting of the ban on political activity. The sooner it comes about the better it will be. The senior leaders of the political parties will then have the opportunity to exchange views among themselves in formal meetings and also with the Election Commission. This will enable politicians, not guilty of corruption, to thrash out a more acceptable process within their respective parties. Political reforms have to come from within. Otherwise it might defeat the entire purpose. That is not necessary.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net.