Good governance is a necessity for achieving the above goal of providing a suitable climate for investment. The government must take the lead for economic, administrative and any other reform measures. But the cooperation of all the other political parties is also required. At the same time, the support of the people of Bangladesh at large is vital, which of course depends to a great extent on the role of the political parties. There comes the question of national consensus. In Bangladesh today there exists a consensus that we need good governance, we need alleviation of poverty, we need social justice and fulfillment of basic needs. We have little difference amongst different political parties on how to accomplish this at least in the broader perspective. But, by and large, the government lacks credibility about its ultimate intentions. The other political parties and the people at large are suspicious as to whether the government takes the reform measures with a sincere desire for establishing good governance. Most of the time, the opposition political parties and the public at large do not think so. There is a perception that the government's ultimate intention is to serve some selfish personal or partisan interest. The most unfortunate thing is that this happens to be true in almost all cases in Bangladesh.

So, in order to implement any reform the initial step is to ensure that the government does something with a view to serve the national interest and not to serve its personal or group interest. It should also be seen that the opposition political parties and most importantly the people of the country accept the measures to be beneficial for the country. That is how the building of national consensus is to be approached.

In the present day circumstance, both the system of government and the election for the determination of the government are flawed. Our system of government in Bangladesh is called a parliamentary system. But it is neither near to the Westminster type of parliamentary government as in the UK nor of the type which is in practice in India. It is a very different type. As per the constitution of Bangladesh, the cabinet is to be collectively responsible to parliament, as should be in a parliamentary system.

Art. 55 (3) says, "The Cabinet shall be collectively responsible to Parliament." On the other hand, the government party MPs in the parliament are not allowed to challenge the government decisions in parliament. Art. 70 (1) of the constitution of Bangladesh says, "A person elected as a member of Parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a candidate by a political party shall vacate his seat if he resigns from that party or votes in parliament against that party. …." . As such, a government with a majority of captive members of parliament on their side, has the privilege of taking the parliament's support as guaranteed. As such, the parliament's role as watch dog to the government activities as stipulated in the above clause of art. 53 (3), has been made ineffective by the subsequent clause as stipulated in art.70 (1). The said anomaly has given the government a free hand in managing the affairs of state without any accountability to the people through their elected representatives in parliament.

In reality, this has allowed subsequent governments under the existing system to misuse their authority and run the country in an autocratic style without any fear of answerability towards the people of Bangladesh. The result is lack of transparency and an environment where corruption and irregularity thrive. This may be considered a major reason for the mistrust of the activities of the government by other political parties and also by the people of the country. Unfortunately, this has been true for not only the present government but also all the past governments of the country. As such, a change of government alone may not be able to create confidence amongst the political parties and the people about the role of the government. A change of system is necessary to make the parliament more powerful and also more effective in controlling the government, and making it accountable to the people through the parliament. The government under that system would be more transparent and the building of national consensus on reform measures could be easier.

Another problem is the present election process. Almost all the national elections under the present system of government are questioned by different quarters. There are sufficient reasons to consider the results questionable. In the total 300 constituencies in the country, there exist more than 30,000 vote centers with more than 100,000 polling booths. Elections take place in a single day within a period of 8 hours simultaneously throughout the country. Many of these centers are in remote places and are not easily approachable from outside. Observers, government private or foreign, can physically reach a very negligible percentage of the total vote centers and also can observe the voting for only a very short period of time during the balloting period on the day of the election.

Interestingly, the magnitude of election manipulation is increasing with the passage of time as subsequent election results seem to be more manipulated compared to previous ones. Also, it is observed that the ways and means of manipulation and influencing of election results are being changed continuously with the objective of outwitting the supervisory bodies.

It is observed that presently the intimidation by armed musclemen and influencing elections by using black money in favor of a candidate starts at least one month before the day of the election. Also reprisals by the same elements for not following the dictates of the armed party cadres continue for at least another month after the election is over. And these are not confined within the boundary of the voting centers anymore but are spread throughout almost the entire country, especially in the places which are not very easily approachable from outside. Considering the entire area as the voting area (instead of the vote centers only) and the mentioned period as the election period (instead of the specified time on the election day), the presence of observers or even government law enforcement agencies (for controlling irregularity and violence during elections) may be considered negligible and ineffective.

The use of armed miscreants as party cadres and also the use of black money is playing a very important role in determining election results under the existing system. Naturally, there remains an element of doubt as to whether the wishes of the people are allowed to be projected correctly.

This has added a new dimension to the governance issue. Not only are the results declared by the election commission rejected by the opposition political parties who lost the election, the tendency of the new government is to become one who patronizes armed musclemen and black money holders. This further confirms that the reason for their victory was the use of force and illegal money and not the desire of the people. This has degenerated into a scenario of constant increase of influence of musclemen and black money holders including their rise in number in national politics. The result is what should have been expected, the constant deterioration of law and order as is very evident from daily newspaper reports. Is it possible to build a national consensus on any issue under a government elected in such an election and in the existing environment? As such, the election system needs to be modified to correctly reflect the wishes of the people.

Building a national consensus for economic reform is a necessity for Bangladesh for poverty alleviation and for attaining sustainable development. But unless a credible government elected as per the true reflection of the people's wishes can be established and its activities can be made transparent and accountable to the people through their elected representative in the national parliament, a national consensus for economic reform will remain a mirage.