The proponents of this proposition hold that both AL and BNP must be held responsible for the current political condition of the country. And, as the leaders of the two parties, (autocratic leaders to be more accurate) Sheik Hasina and Khaleda Zia should accept the blame and step down from their positions. It is further expected that they should offer an apology to people for their mistakes, and thank them for giving them the opportunity to rule the country as chief executives.

The opponents, on the other hand, argue that the minus-two formula is undemocratic. For, according to their opinion, the selection of leadership is a prerogative of the party council. The party councillors can choose anyone as the party leader, and keep him/her as leader as long as they want. But, in the case of the state, the voters have the supreme authority to determine which party leader will form and lead the government.

Hasina made these points crystal clear in her talks with reporters at the Lab Aid hospital on July 7, where she went to visit ailing singer Sabina Yesmin. Begum Zia holds a similar view. In commenting on the reform proposal made public by BNP Secretary General Mannan Bhuyian, she stated that all reforms would be carried out in the council meeting.

Both proponents and opponents agree that voters choose which party leader should form the government. Therefore, the fundamental contentious point in the debate is the antagonists' claim that the party councillors have the right to choose anyone as their leader, and keep him/her in the position as long as they want.

Is this system democratic? Or, in other words, is this argument consistent with the theory and principle of democracy?

A satisfactory resolution to the debate hinges on the answer to this question. To do this, we must understand the role of political parties in a democracy. This, in turn, requires a close and careful look at the theory of democracy, and appreciates the critical difference between the state and government.

A state is generally defined as an organized political community that occupies a definite territory, possesses internal and external sovereignty, and institutes an organized government (rephrased from a web definition).

The most important point to note here is the idea that the state is an organized political community, meaning that the people are its sovereign authority. Or, as our politicians say, all powers of government come from the people.

There are three critical elements that this political community must have to be recognized as a state. First, the community must live in a geographically defined territory, so that sovereign authority can be exercised in this area. Second, it must have sovereign powers, both internally and externally.

Internal sovereignty means that the state has the right to make laws within its territory, while external sovereignty is the recognition in international law that a state has jurisdiction (authority) over a territory. Finally, the ultimate objective of forming a political community (a state) is to establish law and order in the community with a view to promoting general welfare.

All the people cannot, theoretically or practically, achieve this objective. Therefore, the sovereign authority of the state is vested in an institution called government. The basic difference between the state and the government is then clear.

This statement reflects the idea of a state propagated by Greek philosopher Aristotle, who first described human beings as political animals. He begins his famous book, The Politics, with these sentences: "Our own observation tells us that every state is an association of persons formed with a view to some good purpose. I say 'good' because in their actions all men do, in fact, aim at what they think good. Clearly then, all associations aim at some good, and that one which is supreme and embraces all others will have also as its aim the supreme good. That is the association we call state and that type of association we call political."

A government, on the other hand, is an organization in which the state or people's sovereign authority is vested, meaning that a government is empowered to exercise sovereign power of the state.

This brings out two pivotal points of the democratic system of government. First, government is a very complex organization of public administration. Therefore, for good governance, it needs highly professional and meritorious personnel, who can be appointed mainly through selection.

However, these appointed people, no matter how qualified they are, cannot be allowed to lead the government, because they are not chosen by the people whose power is to be exercised. In other words, leaders of a government must be elected by the people -- the state's sovereign authority.

Second, the welfare of the people, which is the sole purpose of organizing a state, depends critically on how this power is exercised. Thus, in a parliamentary system, the people must choose the team that they believe can promote their welfare. If they make the wrong choice, they will suffer the consequences.

Here comes the critical role that political parties play in helping people making the right choice during general elections. In a parliamentary system, the political party commanding majority seats in the house forms the government. Consequently, people vote along party lines, i.e., instead of judging the merits of individual candidates, they vote for candidates belonging to the political party of their choice.

This, however, does not mean that people choose the political party in every election, because a political party needs a long time to win over the confidence and sympathy of the general public, which is usually achieved by highly charismatic leader(s). Once a political party wins popular support it continues for a long time, until and unless its leaders subsequently lose this popular trust, thereby inviting another party to take its place.

What, then, do voters choose in general elections? They choose a political leader and his/her team who, they trust, will run the government according to their expectation. This is a serious point that demands all our attention, because the solution to the minus-two formula lies in investigating what happens when this team is defeated in the next general elections.

To illustrate my point, I will use an analogy. Suppose a person was appointed to a job through an interview. After a year, the authority dismisses him/her from the job for bad performance. The post is re-advertised to fill out the vacancy. Should this person be considered eligible for interview again? The answer ought to be in the negative, for the person has already been found unqualified for the position.

The situation in the case of electing a leader for running the government is no different, except that the issue is supremely important. Let's examine our past three general elections to see if AL and BNP presented the right leaders to voters so that they could make the right choices.

In 1991, neither Sheikh Hasina nor Khaleda Zia had opportunity to run the government. Thus, both of them were qualified to seek voters' mandate. People mandated Khaleda to form the government, while Hasina was made opposition leader. This, in turn, suggests that both leaders were qualified to run in the next general elections held in 1996.

And they did. People chose Sheik Hasina. Since Khaleda failed to get voters' mandate, she was no longer eligible to lead BNP in the next general elections. She could run as a party candidate if she wanted to remain active in politics, because she was re-elected from her own constituency. But she could not lead BNP, because people rejected her leadership, not BNP.

Under the circumstances, the most logical thing for Khaleda to do was to resign from the chairperson position and let the BNP councillors choose another leader. But she did not, and there was no one in the party to even think of asking her to resign.

Consequently, people went to the general elections in 2001 with little choice. They were fed up with Hasina's administration and, therefore, wanted to replace her. But the option they got from BNP was a failed leader. They had no choice but to accept this option.

In the 2001 general elections, Hasina was defeated, meaning that she became unqualified for leading AL in 2006. But she retained the AL leadership and got the party ready for elections. Thus, even if 2006 elections were held, the people had no opportunity, whatsoever, to make the right choice.

Perhaps it is quite appropriate to quote here the British queen's power and function. It is said that the queen has all the power in the empire, except making a man a woman, and vice versa. But the queen can do no wrong. The reason is that the queen can do nothing without the advice of the prime minister. Therefore, if any wrong is done in the execution of government policy, the blame lies with the prime minister, not the queen.

The people are sovereign. They cannot make any wrong choice. If the choice is wrong, that blame must be borne by our political parties. It is their inability that they could not present the right candidates and right leaders for voters to choose.

Perhaps, it is now clear that the opponents' argument -- the party councillors can choose anyone as their party leader and keep him/her leader as long as they want -- is not consistent with the theory and principle of democracy. The minus-two formula, although referring to two specific persons is, indeed, a general principle of the democratic political system. More specifically, this formula is key to a lasting cure for our ailing political parties.

Reforms in political parties are a precondition for good governance in our country. It now appears that the most important element of these reform measures is the notion conveyed by the minus-two formula. Yet, the reform process is not progressing smoothly, because the minus-two formula has become a very controversial political issue.

Many politicians, who feel the political correctness of this proposition, do not come forward because its future is uncertain. On the other hand, those who are courageously supporting the idea are summarily branded as conspirators who want to split their parties by working as government agents.

Under the circumstances, the direct intervention of the Election Commission seems to have become imperative. As a guideline, the EC must request our political leaders to reform their party constitution by requiring their leader, who is the incumbent prime minister, to step down from party leadership post if the party is defeated in the general elections.

This requirement is not negotiable for two good reasons. First, this law is dictated by the principle of democracy. Second, because of the first, this law is the will of the people, the sovereign authority of the state. And this national government has the moral and constitutional obligation to execute this sovereign will

I just wish to mention that this principle of democracy is a practice in all mature democracies. I also warn that a right practice cannot be countered by a wrong practice, which is unfortunately a common debating error in our country.

Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi taught at Bangladesh Agricultural University and at Brac University.