There were multiple views on this. The Daily Star had conducted a prolong debate on the subject. Many had then given their views for and against. I myself for one wrote a column opposing the idea being incompatible with democratic norm which is electing a government by the people (eligible voters on the basis of adult franchise) and the government so formed shall be responsible to the people through the parliament. Mine of course was a common sense view but fact remains that common sense is a sense which is not common to all. The care taker government having tenure of three months or even if made a 'king for a day' is not responsible to any one! The initial selection was made by a few individuals of mainly two political parties -- the question remained as to from where they got the emporium to make such a decision and the selection of personnel? The entire matter seems to have been arbitrary and not according to law.

The president of the country is elected by the members of the parliament. He need not be member of a political party, in any case, once elected he is supposed to become a non partisan symbolic head of the state. He does not have any significant day to day role in the functioning of the government excepting as head of the state to provide continuance of governance. As the head of the state he is not sovereign. He only fulfills constitutional requirement like the monarchy in U.K. or the President of India. But unfortunately, for reasons which I refrain to explain, the position of the president has been made controversial. Possibly because of this reason Article 58E the provisions in the constitution requiring the president to act on the advice of the prime minister or upon his prior counter-signature shall be ineffective.

The care taker government is expected to be non party government (Article 58B of the constitution). The president shall appoint the chief adviser and not more than ten other advisers (Article 58C). The current dispute was largely created by the ruling party. The last retired chief justice is alleged to have been groomed by the BNP to be the chief adviser of the next care taker government. He was made an ambassador to Turkey and on return made a judge of the Hon'ble High court by the BNP government and then he retired as chief justice. The present chief justice was also due to retire in the mean time but suddenly the retirement age of the appellate judges have been extended by another two years (67) so that the present incumbent remains in service and the earlier one remains the last retired chief justice, hence eligible for the post of chief adviser to next care taker government. This sudden increase of retiring age of all the judges of the appellate division only while for other judges the same remaining as before (65) and for all other government servants ten years less at fifty seven, looks palpably inequitable. This seems to be over stepping the democratic norm. This is the whole crux of the issue which has made the opposition parties so much vehemently opposed to it and demanding reforms of the system.

I would, however, like to stick to my earlier views. Moreover it was given to understand that the care taker system of government would be temporary, may be for conducting two to three elections. So it should be now be done away with. Making provision for a care taker government by an amendment in the constitution does not perhaps give it a legal status as basically the thing is ultravires. If it is difficult to do it this time then the post the chief adviser, which is the bone of contention, should be abolished and the president should appoint a council of advisers, taking suggestions from all the political parties and run the day to day administration till a new government is elected. This may possibly help us to avoid a crisis without much of a dislocation within the existing legal framework (Clause 6 of Article 58C of the constitution). The post of the president being a constitutional one is acceptable to all, so no political party should have any reservation to accept the president ungrudgingly. It is high time that without causing any more sufferings to the life of the people the political parties should give up their intransigence and bury their hatchet.

A R Khandaker is a former I G of Police.