While giving reasons, the professor talks about the failure of the political parties in dealing with Bangladesh's problems. What he probably meant is that the political parties are all engaged in war of words against each other and fighting serious battles for staying in power or grabbing power and really not interested in the people's welfare. In other words, the political leaders are fighting for power only and not for curing the country's ills. Whatever the political parties may say, this is how the people in general feel about the political developments. This is unfortunate, indeed, as we depend so much on our political leaders.

The ruling party(s), whatever party is in power, fights only for retaining its power so that the corrupt individuals who remain generally powerful in any party apparatus can hold on to their ill-gotten money without being charged for it. Even if they are charged, they create situations by which the governmental machineries feel obliged to withdraw the cases from the courts through some questionable means. This has been happening all along regardless of which party or parties are in power. This is why no politician has ever gone to jail for his crimes. The only exception was Ershad as no political party came to his rescue.

While the professor's comments, in the light of some bizarre situation in the country, are largely valid, there is no doubt that Bangladesh, compared to other countries of the subcontinent, progressed in several social sectors, despite the failure of the political parties in dealing effectively with the country's problems. Here the role of the people of Bangladesh deserves special mention. I told my relative that he should point out to the professor that Bangladesh made considerable progress in areas like women's empowerment, girl's education where in primary schools there are more girls in the classes than the boys, maternity casualties reduced, sanitation situation and availability of drinking water improved in many rural areas, etc. Recent developments in the area of empowering the local governments with separate budgetary authority is something that needs to be mentioned. Only thing that has to be watched is that the local MPs do not poke their nose into the developmental decisions of the local authorities. It has to be clearly remembered that the MPs all over the world are basically engaged in framing laws keeping in view the requirements of the country and this is undoubtedly a very complex, important and time-consuming job; the MPs must concentrate on them instead of getting into somebody else's domain, apparently for the purpose (obviously not by all MPs but by many) of making some extra gains there, either political and or monetary.

Anyway, I advised my relative to keep those in view for further discussions on Bangladesh with the sole purpose of rescuing my country's position from the critical tongue of the professor and also to improve my relative's position as a Bangladeshi in his class. There is, however, no doubt that some credits should go to the successive governmental authorities as they have been supporting those activities as per the country's agreement with the donors and particularly with the World Bank, which has been regularly working with Bangladesh authorities in these areas.

The above achievements in some of the social sectors, despite failures in other crucial areas, only lead us to the positive conclusion that if these political parties, and particularly the major political parties, bureaucrats, and all of us who boast of being intellectuals and having done a lot towards the country's development and welfare could work together as we all did in 1990-91 in overthrowing the military dictator, Bangladesh would have largely come out of the present political stalemate and vicious poverty cycle. The country has the potential. It is largely a question of harnessing them for the welfare of the people.

A lot depends on the bureaucrats who are unfortunately seriously divided on political lines because of politicization of the bureaucracy by the successive governments. The bureaucracy is really the pillar of the administration. The democracy means that the politicians would come and go as per political strengths of the parties, but the bureaucrats remain as permanent civil servants. So they need to perform as best as possible without caring much for what happens in the political arena. Their views must be based on what is best for the country though often political parties go by their narrow political gains. The country's welfare must be top in their agenda. The people expect them to stand firm on the basis of what is good for the country. If an officer is good in his work and honest, no politics can harm him.

Whatever may be our performance standard elsewhere, we are at the top in corruption. We have internationally recognized degree on that. One Bangladeshi businessman who has a reputation of being honest told me that the biggest problem of Bangladesh is corruption. If corruption could be brought to an acceptable limit, the development of Bangladesh would have been phenomenal. His comments are obviously indicative of the role of the private entrepreneurs in taking the country's development forward. Obviously, he was fed up with the situation and wanted us to do something as we already formed the Citizens Forum Against Corruption (CFAC) to fight corruption as best as possible.

There are many people who do hate corruption which is undoubtedly a criminal activity but are forced to do it as they find no other alternatives to get things done. At least this is what the businessmen say. But a time has come when they must stand firm and bring corruption demands from any quarter openly to the public even if this delays their business somewhat. There is no doubt that their silent contributions, obviously to get things done quickly and that also in their favour, has brought the situation to this shameful stage.

Political rivalry, and political and monetary corruptions are the major evils that are seriously clouding Bangladesh's political and economic future. We all boast of practicing democracy, but where is democracy when successive opposition parties boycott the parliament for months and even for years together? Yes, walk out from the parliament for a short period as a mark of protest is undoubtedly democratic, but not for months and even years. This frustrates the very concept of election and democracy. Why should people vote the members of the political parties to the parliament when parliament boycott is an endemic problem? Stranger still is the practice of MPs drawing remunerations without attending the work place and not performing the functions of the MPs. The parliament cannot belong to a government party alone. This happened earlier too. This is certainly not a democratic practice. The political parties need to answer these questions to the people before they go to the next poll.

With the word election, the Election Commission comes into the picture where the situation appears very complex and indeed unfortunate. We have an Election Commission which does not function as a commission. It again seems to be one man's rule as appears from the position reflected in the media and often statements issued by the commission members. As per the Constitution and rules and regulations, the Election Commission must work as a commission and not as a monarchy or dictatorship. The members reportedly are not even in talking terms with the chief. The people would like to know why such an anarchic situation exists in an important institution like the Election Commission. If it is a democratic country, the people must know reasons. Why are we in such a flap? Is there any need for asking for reform of the Election Commission rules when the commission itself suffers from such a bizarre situation?

The demand for reform of the Care-Taker Government, an undemocratic system which was put in a democratic Constitution, has been there for many months. There is a need for the ruling party to sit with the opposition on the issue and find out why such a demand is there. This must be sorted out swiftly if we are interested to maintain democracy in the country, which was established at a great cost. In case, through some adjustments and concessions from both sides, consensus could be created, then there may not be any need for a radical change. But if the demand is genuine and there is a need, all heads should be put together to find a suitable solution. This is how democracy functions. The political parties must talk and talk for the sake of the country. Party rivalries outside democratic norms or personal rivalry have no place in democracy. The parliament is not the only place where negotiations can take place; if necessary negotiations should take place outside and then brought the results back to parliament for ratification.

Maybe solution could be found if there is a decision to return to the democratic system with clear checks and balances to be introduced in the Constitution, particularly by curtailing the power of the caretaker PM to allay the fear of the opposition (my suggestion in the matter is already there with both ruling and opposition parties including Dr. Kamal Hossain for consideration). In any case, this undemocratic system was agreed to be put in place for four or five elections only; then why not revert to the normal democratic system with appropriate checks and balances. Moreover, Bangladesh cannot continue indefinitely with this undemocratic system which declared no confidence on all political parties. It's a great shame on all of us. If we can trust a ruling party for long five years why can't we do it for three months? If the conscience is clear and genuine desire is there to accommodate differing views, then most of the problems, if not all, can be solved satisfactorily.

Another unfortunate and indeed terrible situation in country's politics. There is politics even on the "departed souls." It is high time to allow those devoted leaders who sacrificed their lives for the good of the country to rest in peace. They will live in the memories of the people on the basis of their respective contributions to this nation. When they were alive there was no controversy over who declared Independence. After 35 years, is there really any need to fight on this issue? Let the historians put them in their respective places on the basis of their great contributions. Let's leave it there and not complicate the country's politics and mislead our coming generations.

Finally, the deadliest of all is the emerging religious corruption which is also destroying Bangladesh's position as a secular state. "Secular" may mean different things to different people. However, normally it should mean neutrality to different religious beliefs and no bar in practicing one's religion. But it seems that some people would bomb people to establish an Islamic state. The practicing Muslims should have no problem with Islamic rules and regulations. Any Muslim would follow them whether we call it an Islamic state or not.

Our Prophet established Islam but never preached killing of people to establish Islam. Under his state, the people of other religions lived in peace. The basic principle should be to tell the truth about Islam and let people decide whether to embrace Islamic faith. Forced faith is no faith at all. If this belief is there, then there can be no problem. May Allah guide us all to the path of peace which is indeed Islam.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador, and founder VC of North South University and Presidency University. He is also the Chairman of Citizens' Forum Against Corruption (CFAC).