At the very first opportunity of being given the outlet for free speech, some BNP MPs had named certain ministers whose back they wanted to see as the former 'brought slur' on the ruling party. At least they were speaking for their constituencies thereby reflecting the wider public mood for downsizing the government which looked pre-eminently feasible by the manifest inefficiency on the part of some ministers. So, by one broad stroke felling the failed ministers, the ruling party leadership could endear itself both to the outspoken MPs and the people at large.

The person whose exit from the cabinet was most vociferously in demand -- namely, ex-home minister Altaf Hossain -- has been moved to his new position as commerce minister. Who can blame him for feeling 'promoted' when the government itself has pooh phooed his failure as home minister. Isn't his removal from the home ministry a recognition of the public criticism that he has failed in his previous position? Then, such an active ministry like that of home affairs is being placed under a state minister. Granted, the prime minister has taken it over for the time being, but with her onerous responsibility as the country's chief executive, it's a portfolio she would need to be unburdened of at the earliest.

Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury has had to resign his commerce ministership reportedly because of the price spiral and row over the Taiwanese trade outfit in Dhaka. We believe the real reasons are different. If improving the performance of the commerce ministry was the real reason then how could the portfolio be given to someone whose singular failure in his previous post is not only well known but also acknowledged by all. Similarly we wonder what purpose is being served by redesignating state minister for foreign affairs Reaz Rahman as advisor to the same ministry.

What is the rationale behind the 'flash in the pan'? What message the government wishes to signal through the move? If the purpose was to ease off non-performing ministers, the most infamous one has been given a new lease of life; and besides, there are so many other inefficient ministers who should have been seen off.

The so-called reshuffle is more a product of rivalry within the cabinet than the outcome of a well-thought-out corrective process. Patently, fringe-touching and cosmetic, it reflects the same strand of ad-hoc thinking that has become the hallmark of governance. There is no pattern, no sense of direction that one can discern in the otherwise dramatic move. It is a gimmick; it's thoroughly disappointing.