A common question that one very often hears these days being asked is whether the parliamentary elections will be held as per the timeframe as expressed by the Election Commission. While on the matter of elections, one is reminded of an anecdote that is associated with the late president Ziaul Huq of Pakistan.

Every time the Pakistan president sat down to have his hair cut the barber would start by asking, "Mr. President, when will you hold the election in the country?" And the president would reply, "All in good time." Nothing further would transpire between the two till the next time when the barber would start by asking the same question and receive the same reply.

After this had gone on for sometime, Zia was mystified by his barber's interest in elections. The next time he turned to his barber, when put the very same question for the umpteenth time, and asked: "How is it that every time before you start cutting my hair you ask the same question and remain satisfied with the same answer I give."

"I am not interested in your answer, it's only that when I ask you about your intention of holding election your hairs stand on their ends, and that makes my job of cutting your hair easier," was the candid reply.

Let me assert that our interest in the parliamentary elections in Bangladesh is less mundane, but of somewhat greater significance than General Huq's barber's was in his country's election. Apart from the prices of consumables, election is the only matter in Bangladesh that is consuming the time, energy and money of the people at large.

In spite of the CA's repeated expression of hope, and affirmation of his government's intent to have the parliamentary election by end of this year, there are expressions of doubt in many quarters whether that would actually happen. And this view is reinforced everyday by comments and articulations of newer and fresher options of new political dispensations -- that might be taken up by way of an exit strategy, according to the protagonists of these ideas, by the caretaker government.

I wonder why people are talking about exit strategy at all when there was no entry strategy in the first place. The involvement of the armed forces was because of a force majeure; and that being the case, nobody should be thinking of strategies that give the impression of an intention to cut and run as a saving grace, leaving everything to Providence.

Nothing can be worse than a situation where honest intentions, bedeviled by incorrect strategy and in some cases faulty tactics, forgive the military parlance, are forsaken, and the aim contorted, only to save face. Those who deal with long-term planning and strategise the shortest road to success cannot have forgotten that the aim must never change, and if strategies cannot lead up to the objectives, it must be so adjusted as to be able to put the plan back on track. Readjustment of position to conform to the needs for achievement of the aim is not an unknown phase in a battle. And that is perhaps something that we do not hear being done much about. However, we must remember what Einstein said about solving problems. He had said: "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them."

One of the new ideas that have resurfaced -- it was being touted as an alternative arrangement -- very soon after January 11, 2007, is the option of a national government. What has gone wrong, one wonders, that an arrangement which only an elected government can put in place by offering other key political parties a share in running the affairs of the state, is being peddled by some quarters.

A national government was perhaps in order after December 16, 1971, and perhaps also when political uncertainties and abridgement of democratic process post 1975, when it could have featured as an option. National governments have proved useful after a crisis, such as a prolonged period of conflict or war, where all political parties participate in the running of the government.

An historical reference in this regard may be in order. We know about the national governments in the UK, that were formed at various times between the First World War and the Second, to tide over grave crises. There was the national government of the Baldwin, MacDonald and Chamberlain trio, and the all-party coalitions of Asquith and David Lloyd George and of Winston Churchill, that were sometimes termed as national governments at the time, but have now come to be referred to as coalition governments.

The all party governmnet formed by Ramsay McDonald after the fall in 1931 of the Labour government he was heading, composed of men from all parties, to address a particular crisis, at that particular instance, of the budget. Interestingly, the number of the cabinet members at that time was also ten, whose job it was to balance the budget and then hold general election on party lines.

There are, therefore, two imperatives in the formation of a national governmnet. Firstly, it is done by elected representatives of the people, to fulfill the other imperative, that of addressing a crisis situation.

The idea of a national government had been attacked by many and defended by only a few belonging to the clan of revisionist historians. A national government is a temporary measure which has, nevertheless, been criticised as a viable alternative. It is an alternative that is the consequence of situations brought about by bad leadership -- "Guilty Men" as some were referred to. Alas! We do not have the likes of Michel Foot, David Owen or Peter Howard, who, in coalition had written a book by the same name, criticising the British leadership of failing to confront Germany and adequately preparing the country for war.

Like them, we call for those that brought our country to the precipice recently, "let the guilty men (and women) retire." Politics and democracy in Bangladesh cannot be made a victim of their failings.

Anything that abridges the process of democracy and stifles expression of popular will is a repugnanat idea that must be purged from our thought process. A governmnet must retain its moral character. And it can only do so, as Rousseu says, if the governmnet can rest its moral authority on the consent of the governed. It was there post 1/11. It is doubtful whether a volonte generale will be there should any arrangement be other than an election to the Parliamnet. And that should be held without any further loss of time.

Brig Gen (retd) Shahedul Anam Khan is Editor, Defense & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.