After a long haul of mass upheavals, democratic system was again in place in 1991 following an election held under supervision of a NCG led by the then Chief Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed. This election received overwhelming applause home and abroad because people of Bangladesh had in fact forgotten to vote in a free and fair manner prior to that election. The then main opposition party, however, complained of subtle rigging. That the allegation was just a political posture is clear from the fact that Shahabuddin Ahmed was made President of the country in AL period (1996-2001).

Another election took place in 1996 under Retired Chief Justice Habibur Rahman as the Chief Advisor of the NCG. That election, too, was accorded with appreciation. As usual, the then main opposition party complained of anomalies, but the reactions were not of a serious nature. Admittedly, these two elections held under Shahabuddin Ahmed and Habibur Rahman heralded new hopes and the nation was set to settle down. The confidence reposed in the judiciary also paid off. Consequently, it became rather a golden rule that a man from the judiciary is the appropriate person for the post of Chief Advisor.

Arguably, disenchantment with the people of the judiciary seems to have taken place in recent times. Now, the proposition is being put forward that any person from the civil society -- not necessarily a person from the judiciary -- can become the Chief Advisor of the NCG. One is tempted to delve into the projected rationale behind such thinking.

Retired Chief Justice Latifur Raman was the Chief Advisor of the NCG under whose supervision another election took place in 2001. I need to make it categorical that my intention is neither to unearth its fairness nor to contradict its results but to point to the controversy it created. Perhaps, the reactions and implications of that election have been so profound that they have prompted a rethinking as to the Chief Advisor's chair.

Latifur Rahman made a strong reshuffle in the administration within hours of his take-over. Though it created resentment among some quarters, the intentions of Latifur Rahman seemed good as he was required to do so for bringing back sort of equilibrium in the administration. He had every right to tinker with the previous administration's arranged structure for ensuring neutrality of the administration in the election process. More changes followed and were mostly welcomed.

In an another move, the then vice-chancellor of National University was removed from his post fearing that, being a minority, he would work in favour of a specific political party claimed to be in the good books of the minority people. Even if this rationale is accepted, was there not the apprehension that the replacement vice-chancellor might also be biased? Another significant, among others, decision of Latifur Rahman government was to appoint employees of a specific private bank in crucial election duties ignoring thousands of government and autonomous employees over whom control of the government is rather direct.

There is no cogent proof to claim that these changes influenced the results of the election, but they did fuel the skeptics. The point at issue is, however, whether these and other questionable yet avoidable decisions have any bearing on the demand for reform of caretaker system and the disenchantment with the people from the judiciary. Besides, is the "caretaker" concept poised to undergo serious reexamination in its birthplace within just 15 years of its birth? Is its sustainability in question or vulnerability exposed?

Seemingly, Latifur Rahman, for some reasons, valid or not, became emotional rather than rational. While working hard for streamlining the administration, he, perhaps, lost his concentration at times and gave something to question his credibility so much so that the disenchantment was induced. Admittedly, any such disillusionment did not take place after two elections held under Shahabuddin Ahmed and Habibur Rahman.

Plenty of laws are there to deter human failings. We talk about accountability and call for stringent laws and their enforcement. But, is it possible to make a man completely accountable only by the laws? Moreover, what is the practical mechanism to make a NCG accountable? What about responsibility? Is any law required to make a sensible person responsible?

I think that the time has come to demand a Rational Caretaker Government (RCG) instead of a Neutral Caretaker Government (NCG). Its high time all assumed more responsibility as well as rationality rather than crying hoarse for neutrality. Concurrently, our all-knowing political leaders can also be kind enough to start being rational. Arguably, it is neither easy nor essential to be always neutral. However, it makes sense to be rational under all circumstances and, more important, it pays to be the same.

Kazi S.M. Khasrul Alam Quddusi is Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, University of Chittagong.