WHILE solutions to the present political stalemate do not appear to be in sight and the public continue to suffer due to obstinacy of the political actors, is it worth pondering over measures that could be undertaken without recourse to political dialogue, with a view to tiding over the present situation? The reference, quite clearly, is aimed at strengthening of the institutions that ensure the conducting of fair election. There are surely no two opinions that valid fears and apprehensions about the conducting of credible election under a party government lie at the bottom of the present confrontational scenario.

In 1995 when, owing to the badly bungled Magura bye-election, the necessity of a non-partisan caretaker government was an acceptable proposition, the government of the day went headlong into a farcical election under its partisan watch and finally relinquished power when the situation went beyond its control. The stubbornness to cling to political power anyhow buckled under popular pressure.

From the reports appearing in the media at that time it was abundantly clear that the Magura election had become a political caricature. An upright chief election commissioner (CEC) could have declared postponement and asked the contesting parties to behave. The law enforcing agencies including the armed forces could have been mobilised to ensure fair election. However, the then CEC showed no signs of firmness, leading some to call it 'timidity', others to call it 'indecisiveness,' and some others termed it as 'misplaced legal formalism.'

Another palpable example of the defiance of the democratic norm in a most blatant manner was set when, in 2006, deliberate efforts were made to install a pliant and partisan caretaker government. In fact, the armed forces-backed caretaker government in January 2007 was quite clearly the result of the refusal of a major political party to play the political game fairly.

Coming to specifics, could Dr. Iajuddin, the former president of the republic in late 2006, convince the nation that his controversial assumption of the office of chief adviser was necessitated by the compelling circumstances as claimed? Or was it by deliberate design? It did not take a discerning observer to entertain serious reservations about the neutrality and non-partisan character of Dr. Iajuddin.

Former president Dr. Iajuddin assumed the charge of the office of the chief adviser without adequately exhausting the available constitutional options. His subsequent actions, still fresh in public memory, had actually validated his detractors' accusations of partiality; and that of carrying out the wishes and directions of his patrons and mentor.

If we care to retrace our steps we will remember that the last minute stalling of the issuance of rule in writ petitions that challenged the legality of president's untenable assumption of the office of chief adviser was given sanction by the highest judiciary.

To recall, the nation, in its desperate hours, expected the president of the republic to be legally and constitutionally upright and hoped that the head of the state would deliberate on matters of national interest with due diligence and solemnity. Unfortunately, he failed to protect the integrity of the constitutional arrangement of neutral and non-partisan caretaker government and ensured its irreparable denigration in public estimation. His actions led us to an ungovernable state.

The crux of the matter lies in the trust factor. Therefore, the cynics cannot be faulted when they say that the caretaker system is, in fact, a scathing indictment on the unreliability of our political class. The situation appears ludicrous because five years tenure can be run on a democratic system characterised by the primacy of politicians but elections have to be managed by a clearly non-democratic arrangement.

The question is, how have we created the apparent trust deficit? Is it the result of cumulative deficiencies of the regulatory institutions that we have willy-nilly allowed to grow at our own peril? A circumspect view would be that many institutions have not displayed the courage, fairness and firmness expected of them in ensuring propriety in conducting elections.

As per constitutional provision and administrative directives, the Election Commission (EC), a constitutional body, enjoys complete command and control over the executive branch, including the armed forces in so far as it relates to the conduction of election. Therefore, the Commission can effectively energise field level executive magistracy and law enforcement functionaries. On ground, it is the magistracy and police who deal with the specifics of election management like selection of polling agents, safety and security of ballot boxes and polling centres, and ensuring peaceful environment.

The point to note is that the EC has to be really empowered so that nobody takes it lightly and the field executives do their duties conscientiously and remain answerable. If 34 years of rule by a particular political party was not able to influence the bureaucracy in favour of the incumbent in the neighbouring Indian state of Paschimbanga then why should our public servants fail? When our public servants have served reasonably creditably during caretaker dispensation they can also perform similarly under a party government.

The above may appear wishful thinking in the backdrop of our confrontational political culture, sharp polarisation along political lines and politicisation of public service including institutional cracks, but we have not reached a precipice. Surely, we can salvage our nation's honour by institutional strengthening.

It is pertinent to note that the Paschimbanga scenario does not need the umbrella of a caretaker government to oversee elections because their institutions have not been interfered with and made weak like ours. There, State Assembly elections were held on six different dates and the EC's authority was seen to be manifestly upright. This was been possible because the regulatory authorities have not been politicised there, and the distinction between private desire and public propriety has not been blurred. Constitutional positions retain their halo and service ethos remains unblemished.

The executives, in their role as appointed representatives of
the republic can, under the bold stewardship of the EC, put a halt to electoral malpractices and hold wayward politicians at bay, being supported by a caring and proactive judiciary. They have to take pride in their role as impartial public servants. In the ultimate analysis, our guardians will hopefully appreciate that an upright executive and the judiciary befitting the correct ethos of public service will act as guarantors of democracy.

In a situation where unfortunately neither the people nor the country is figuring as the first priority, our altruistic virtues would be open to question. Therefore, while the opposition needs to be persuaded to wait for some time for appropriate measures towards institutional firmness, the government of the day has to be encouraged to takes steps that would assure the former about a reasonably inclusive fair election.

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.