There are many supporters (mostly tacit) of the present coalition government and when they are frustrated with the bad performance of the party in power in terms of failures in controlling prices of essentials, the unprecedented level of corruption, nepotism, politicisation and ineptness in running the government, they started crying foul and wanted to prove that the past Awami League government had also failed on the same scores and, therefore, none is better. Some of them tend to say, like Azad Miah, 'what good will come if Hasina takes office?' They should respect the truth while comparing the two governments . Even though it failed to control the law and order situation to the satisfaction of people, the AL government was able to attain food autarky for the first time in the country's history and succeeded in maintaining a very low inflationary level with expansionary fiscal policy and in providing huge funds for rural works programme. It also attained remarkable infrastructural development. The AL government maintained a stable level of prices throughout its tenure in office. The foreign policy was truly independent. It managed the 1998 floods very successfully. It gave the nation victory in the ICC Trophy and helped attain the Test status in international cricket. During the AL regime, February 21 was recognised as the International Mother Language Day. Average growth rates of GDP were all-time high in Bangladesh (vide, ADB country report) during Hasina's time. Azad has suggested putting an end to politics dominated by certain families. One may propagate the idea based on comparative performance, but as an informed citizen, I still see the relevance of the leadership of Sheikh Hasina for rapid economic growth and the welfare of the poor people of this country. What's going on is certainly based on people's mandate/acceptance, whether we like it or not. Banning family dominated politics, as suggested by Azad , sounds undemocratic. Who bans whom on what basis?