It wasn't until I had read Barrister Rashid's piece that I became aware that the caretaker government could constitutionally stay in office longer than 90 days. I am willing to bet that this would also be news to many of our readers and indeed to most of the country.

The common understanding is that the caretaker government is constitutionally empowered to stay in office only for 90 days, but this is not so. The 90 day stipulation is set forth in Article 123.3 and is the period within which the elections are supposed to be held.

But as Barrister Rashid astutely points out, according to Article 58B.1, the chief adviser and the caretaker government stay in office, not for only 90 days, but until "the date on which a new Prime Minister enters upon his office after the constitution of [a new] Parliament."

Now that is quite a difference and gives rise to a number of questions.

For instance, what happens if there are no elections for one reason or another or if elections are held but due to lack of credibility are not acceptable to the people.

It seems that in such instances there is a good argument to be made that the caretaker government would remain in office. I have found nothing in the constitution that limits the time period for which the caretaker government can remain in office.

The crucial point is that it is apparently quite possible to move from the path of parliamentary democracy to a less democratic dispensation in a manner that is fully in accord with the constitution.

Under previous iterations of the constitution, it would have required martial law and suspension of the constitution for this to happen, but under the current constitution, such a shift would seem to be perfectly constitutional.

One implication of this is that an extended period of caretaker government would have constitutional legitimacy within the country and be able to rightfully call on the police force and the civil service and even the armed forces to enforce its authority.

Being able to constitutionally demand the backing of the armed forces is key. Not having a popular mandate, a caretaker government would require at least the tacit support of the armed forces to maintain order.

Only if it is known that the army is supportive, or at least neutral, and in extremis willing to come out on the streets to protect law and order, can a caretaker government ensure that its authority will be respected.

This brings us to the second implication -- international legitimacy. If the army were to come in, then this would generate all kinds of outcry outside the country. Such a take-over would likely trigger all kinds of economic and trade sanctions as well as the cessation of development aid.

But a scenario with an extended caretaker government, tacitly supported or at least not opposed by the armed forces, might perhaps be less objectionable to the international community.

Barrister Rashid has put his finger on the key element. The indefinite tenure constitutionally permitted for the caretaker government opens up all sorts of new possibilities.

The simple reason is that right now things do not look promising in terms of acceptable elections being held. Every effort must be made to hold free and fair elections, as a representative government is an indispensable fundamental right of the people. However, most people in the country have now come to the conclusion that there can be no credible election under the current chief election commissioner.

But there are no signs that he plans to vacate the position, and even if he did, there is still plenty of reform needed to ensure that the elections are acceptable. Even if election reform is accomplished, there remains the issue of caretaker government reform and who the chief adviser will be. I see no evidence that this debate will be concluded any time soon.

Put this all together and you can see that we are in quite a fix . Some might even call it in incipient constitutional crisis. If there is no agreement on election reform or caretaker government reform, what happens then? No one could say.

But now we have an intriguing possibility thrown into the mix. The parliament will stand dissolved automatically on October 28. The president can then appoint the chief adviser and the caretaker government, and this caretaker government is then constitutionally empowered to run the affairs of state for an indefinite period of time if elections cannot be held or if the elections are not acceptable.

This is why there is all the noise being made about the presidency. The president not only controls the armed forces, he also essentially gets to name the entire caretaker government.

In addition, it should be noted, as GM Quader pointed out in his Daily Star op-ed of June 26, according to Article 58C.6 of the constitution, if the retired justices decline the post, the president retains the power to appoint himself as chief adviser and take up the role of the head of the caretaker government.

Nor is this a question of a mere 90 days. It could be for quite a long time.

Perhaps this is why a section of the print media has been filled with conspiracy theories that the caretaker government might operate as a front for the existing government to extend its rule by non-democratic means. This would go a long way to explaining the current government's apparent desire to ensure the absolute loyalty of the president.

Let me be perfectly clear here: an extended caretaker government would be a disaster for the country. Just because something is arguably constitutional doesn't mean it is the right or even the prudent thing to do. Far from it. The last thing we need to do right now is to turn the clock back and revert to non-democratic means of running the country.

Bearing this in mind, the responsibility lies with the BNP and the AL to reach a compromise so that credible elections can be held and that neither Article 58C.6 nor Article 58B.1 of the constitution need to be invoked.

The only acceptable outcome is free and fair elections held under a neutral and competent election commission. Let us not lose sight of this basic goal. What we need in Bangladesh is to make our democracy work, and there are plenty of steps that we can take to make this happen short of abandoning it in its entirety.

The danger of the non-democratic route is that we do not know who we will be getting and we have no way of removing an unelected government if it disappoints or indeed if it is nothing more than a front for an unelectable political party.

We do not want to go down the non-democratic route. If the BNP and the AL are not able to reach a compromise to hold acceptable elections, then they will have failed their democratic ideals, they will have failed themselves, they will have failed the very political system that they been the principal beneficiaries of, and above all, they will have failed the nation in its hour of need. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.