These are serious questions. We are faced today with an extremely complex scenario that demands not only astute constructive engagement but also political will and sincerity of purpose. The whole electoral process after nearly six weeks of caretaker governance has reached the proverbial crossroads. The clock is ticking away and many are concerned that ineffective leadership might eventually result in our missing the bus.

The first few days of the second month of this administration have witnessed frustration, rowdism, some hope and very little maturity. Some of the Advisers within the Caretaker Government, despite the wily machinations of the President, have also demonstrated a degree of determination, sensitivity and efforts geared towards finding acceptable solutions to intractable problems.

It is indeed sad that time has been lost unnecessarily through short-sightedness on the part of the Chief of the Caretaker Government. His actions have worsened matters and confirmed suspicions that he was implementing the hidden agenda of the former BNP-led Alliance which had appointed him as President. Unnecessarily, on the very evening of the hasty announcement of the election schedule, he appointed two controversial persons as new Election Commissioners. One of them, an ex-bureaucrat, had been openly campaigning for the past few months in his constituency with the hope that he would receive the BNP nomination to contest from that seat in the forthcoming election. This was brazen by any stretch of the imagination.

Similarly, over the past week, judicial aspects related to the electoral process, not helped by the sudden and debatable decision of the Chief Justice led to unfortunate and regrettable acts of vandalism and reason within the premises of the High Court. Such action did not enhance the dignity of the legal profession. It only created an undesirable dead-lock. Despite provocation, the aggrieved lawyers could have exercised restraint and proceeded with the process of redress in accordance with available law. They might have filed for review. I do not know why this was not attempted.

This controversial situation has become murkier with the Judges and lawyers venting their grievances through absence from the Court. This in turn has affected the operation of the High Court. This extreme crisis in judicial governance has recently deteriorated even further with authorities of the Supreme Court deciding to initiate additional action against some senior lawyers under Section 124 A of the Penal Code. I feel that time has come for both sides to take a step back from the brink. Efforts must be made to find a satisfactory compromise. This is absolutely essential. This dispute is distracting attention from the more important factor -- the holding of a free and fair election.

Sheikh Hasina, leader of the 14-Party Alliance has correctly set forth the priorities. She has demanded proper updating of the flawed voters' list before the commencement of the electoral process through the announcement of the election schedule. If the elections are to be considered as free and fair, necessary and serious measures will have to be carried out to re-check that list. The duplicate and incorrectly listed names (euphemistic to say the least) need to be weeded out. This is a pre-requisite and definitely the first step.

It was heartening therefore to note that the Election Commission has finally agreed to undertake such a step. After spending nearly Taka 700 million on this exercise, they have now decided to spend another Taka 100 million for this purpose. Their task has to be completed very carefully. Otherwise doubts will remain about their intention and the effectiveness of their action. The time that they have decided to allocate for this purpose has to be spent effectively. We have been given to understand that the National Democratic Institute might assist them in this regard. That is good, but it might have been better to associate also an indigenous civil society, an organisation like 'Sujon', which has already undertaken widespread action in this area.

It was also a relief to be assured about a changed election schedule. Efforts geared towards rectification and correction will be that much more meaningful if that is followed by a revised election schedule. Such a measure will introduce the required flexibility and create the requisite atmosphere for the holding of a peaceful election, where all parties can participate freely and voters can express their choice without intimidation.

After this comes the question of reconstitution of the Election Commission and its Secretariat. The observations made by Election Commissioner Mahfuz have not helped. They have only created greater complexity. He has already become controversial for the manner in which he had himself appointed as the Acting Chief Election Commissioner. The steps undertaken for this purpose do not appear to conform to the spirit and intent of the existing provisions contained in the Representation of the People Order (PO No 155 of 1972). The power to make an appointment to that office lies with the President, not the Commission itself. This, and many other irrelevant utterances by Commissioner Mahfuz have only made his functioning in the Election Commission that much more contentious.

Some of the Advisers are trying their best to find acceptable solutions through flexible initiatives. This has been a complicated task. One of them has been candid enough to state that they are finding it difficult to persuade suitable persons to accept the responsibilities of being Election Commissioners. One can understand their frustration given the fact that they have to tackle this challenge of reforming the Election Commission without any real support from the Chief Adviser. One can only hope that the changes being put in place through their initiative will be able to resolve the problems. Unfortunately, days are running out and the constitutional crisis can only deepen in the near future.

This current imbroglio with regard to the electoral process had led many to suggest that the Caretaker Administration should carefully examine the possibility as to whether the election schedule can be extended beyond the current constitutional provision of ninety days. Such a move on the part of some political leaders created its own degree of uncertainty. They suggested that any doubt in this regard could be resolved by the President referring the matter to the Appellate Division of he High Court under Article 106 of the Constitution. They felt that this would enable the Caretaker Administration to ascertain whether the time frame (with regard to holding the election) as mentioned in Article 123 of the Constitution, was mandatory or just a directive.

However, the latest developments, in all probability, have created a situation which will not require such a reference. All political parties now appear to be agreeing to participate in an election within the ninety days period. This is indeed good news.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at [email protected]