There is no doubt that people are concerned about the terrorist threat and that this concern is a high priority for us as we enter the election year. But we have fortunately not allowed security fears to dictate our lives, and if things remain reasonably stable in the coming year (a big if), the terrorist threat may not necessarily be as crucial an issue in the upcoming elections as once thought of.

The last terrorist attack was the December 8 suicide bombing in Netrokona, and it is remarkable to see how quickly the threat of terrorism seems to have faded from public memory and public discussion.

This is in part due to the fact that the authorities have made some high profile arrests and seizures in the past few months, and that the apparent respite in bombings has permitted the public to hope that perhaps the government has a handle on the situation.

Perhaps the fact that terror has receded to the political back-burner is also due to the fact that there is no consensus as to who would be better placed to combat the terrorists, the current 4-party alliance government or the opposition 14-party alliance, and that no one side seems to have been able to glean an obvious political advantage from the situation.

On the face of it, this is surprising. One would have thought that the opposition would have been in a good position to mine the security threat for political gain.

The opposition has argued that the reason that the terrorists have been able to strike so freely and that the militant kingpins are still at large is because they have been sheltered by influential allies in the government.

This would seem to be a persuasive argument. The links between the JMB terrorists and elements of the ruling alliance have been well established and well documented, and it seems axiomatic that it is this link that has permitted the militants to grow so powerful and escape detection for so long.

But the opposition argument that as long as the 4-party alliance remains in power, the hands of the law enforcement authorities will remain tied, and the nation will remain at the mercy of the terrorists, has not really gained traction.

One counter argument put forth by supporters of the ruling alliance is that it is only the existence within the government of religious fundamentalist elements that keeps the terrorists in check, and that if the opposition were to come to power, then the extremists would step up their campaign of terror and things would deteriorate much more quickly.

According to this argument, the best bet for stability, security, and an effective campaign to combat the terrorists would be for the 4-party alliance to remain in power.

Most people seem to have taken each of the above positions at face value and concluded that regardless of who is in power it will not make much difference on the issue of terror. The general consensus seems to be that both the 4-party alliance and the 14-party alliance are more or less equally competent (or incompetent as the case may be) to counter the terrorist threat, and that on this issue there is little to choose between the two sides.

Much of course depends on the events of the next twelve months. If there are no more terrorist attacks between now and election day, then the government might be given credit for cracking down on the extremists and keeping the nation safe. However, if there are more terrorist attacks or if the senior militant leadership remains at large, then public disenchantment with the current government could set in very quickly.

The government may try to deflect such criticism by continuing to blame the opposition for fomenting the terror. However, this line of argument has not caught on with the public either due to the lack of any supporting evidence, and in any event does not do much to redeem the government in the public eye.

Whoever is behind the bombings, the thinking among the public goes, it is the government's job to ensure law and order. The argument that the government's enemies are plotting to overthrow it only makes it look weak and ineffectual, and people are more interested in government finding a solution to the problem than pointing fingers.

But where we stand right now, bombings seem to have faded from people's consciousness, and to the extent that people do think about them, it seems that the bombings have not cut significantly one way or another in terms of public opinion as to the political parties.

If there are no more bombings, chances are on election day that most voters, with the exception of those in places that have been directly targeted by the bombers, will not put terrorism that high on their priority list when determining who to pull the lever for.

Is this living in a fool's paradise? Ought we to be more concerned with the terrorist threat and ought the upcoming election to be one determined on questions of national security?

I am not so sure. On the whole, I am encouraged by the fact that the general public has been slow to rush to judgement on one side or the other for the terrorist attacks.

The government has been roundly and rightly criticised due to the fact that it was unable to prevent the initial attacks and that appalling carnage has been committed by terrorists during its tenure. But by the same token, people seem to be giving the government due credit in light of the recent arrests and seizures.

Similarly, as to the question of whether some elements within the government have links to the militants, the public appears to be waiting for more information before making a determination.

In my opinion, it seems beyond question that elements within the government do have links with the militants and have been sheltering and sponsoring them, and that this is one reason that the extremists have been able to be so effective and that their senior leadership remains at large.

Nevertheless, I am perfectly comfortable with the public taking its time to make a judicious, responsible, and informed judgement on the matter, or of its waiting to see how the government deals with those in its midst with such connections, before deciding how this will affect its political thinking.

I would also like to think that the public reaction is at least partly due to the fact that the electorate here is mature enough to understand that we cannot let security considerations rule our lives and crowd out all other concerns. The corrosive effect of terrorist attacks on the body politic and the mind-set of the public have been all too evident in some other countries (cough America cough) that we would do well not to emulate.

There are other crucial issues for the electorate to focus on this election year, such as the price of essentials, and education, and energy policy, and industrial policy, and foreign relations, and who has a more compelling vision for Bangladesh's future. These are the issues the election should be fought on. Security is important, but we cannot let it eclipse all of our other concerns.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.