Such a scenario is both sad and soothing. It is sad because the politicians, themselves, fail to (or are reluctant to) sit together and sort out the problems. It is soothing because, anyhow, they got together. This is unfortunate for, and an aspersion on, our political parties. The perception that the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and IMF, allegedly, dictate our developmental goals springs mostly from our failures to do the right thing ourselves. Whether it is rationalization of energy prices or tariff levels, or reduction of system losses -- everything we do seems to have been forced, and not of our own choice.

However, the main issue on that occasion was the upcoming general election and the ways and means to make it meaningful. As far as I could understand, the LCG assured them of arranging foreign observers, supporting domestic observers and helping the Election Commission (EC) with logistic support, if necessary. In other words, keeping the current caretaker government system and EC modalities constant, the LCG would, perhaps, aim at arranging observers to see that the election game is free and fair.

But we are afraid that, given current composition of the EC and the lack of a power balance between the president and head of the caretaker government during the interim period, the attempts of the LCG in ensuring a free and fair poll might receive a heavy blow. In the election environment, or system, that is prevailing today the result of the election can be taken for granted. It will be in favour of the ruling alliance. I personally doubt whether the CEC, himself, believes that a fair election is possible under his command. Of course, that apprehension does not mean that LCG should come out with a formula to make the elections free and fair. It is purely an internal affair, and only the political parties of the country can sit together for a sustainable solution.

Before delving into the dynamics of an apparently neutral looking election regime that is being projected by the government now, allow me to draw your kind attention to a recent news item. The news has come out in various papers. While the past two heads of the caretaker governments -- Justices Shahabuddin Ahmed and Habibur Rahman -- had to leave (or they had left) their government houses immediately after the stipulated time, the immediate past caretaker head, Mr. Latifur Rahman, clung to that privilege for a period of about five years!

As some newspaper reports tended to reveal, the prime minister was so happy at his performance, or devotion, that she managed the house for him under special arrangements. Our question is: should Mr. Latifur Rahman have accepted that offer in the face of an "ocean of accusations" of election engineering during his tenure? The next question that strikes one's mind is what kind of special services to the party in power Mr. Rahman might have provided to warrant such a "gift" from the government? Critics might argue that Mr. Latifur Rahman played a partisan role during the election and, thus, was allowed to stay in that palacious house for about five years.

The next caretaker chief is going to assume power with no less criticism than his predecessor, Mr. Latifur Rahman. Already, he has been dubbed as a supporter of BNP, and the age limit of the chief justice is alleged to have been raised keeping Mr. Hasan in mind as the next caretaker chief. Thus, not ex post but ex ante, the upcoming caretaker head has already been rewarded with an extension of age, if not with an extension of stay in a government house, under special considerations. Pitifully he is heading with a lot of suspicions about a free and fair election in 2007 conducted by him.

Recently, the PM, and her party men, have been arguing that the last government (implying AL) did not undertake reforms, hence their appeal for reforms amounts to creating chaos in the country. What is lost sight of in this case is the fact that: (a) AL government did not raise the age limit of the chief justice, with an eye on the next caretaker head; (b) the last caretaker chief was not known to have been linked to any political party like the upcoming one; and (c) the then chief election commissioner (CEC) did not play a partisan role regarding the voter list as has been done now by the present CEC. Thus, with the existing CEC, the next caretaker head and manipulated voter list, BNP is in fact handing over power to another BNP in disguise to make the general election so called "free and fair."

The movement that the AL-led 14 party alliance has launched has substantial logic in it. Without making the EC truly independent, selecting the caretaker chief on consensus basis and reforming the existing rules and regulations, it would be suicidal on the part of the opposition to participate in any general election. However, the opposition should also keep in mind that, at the negotiating table, they would have to shed some to gain some.

Our view is that the minimum agreements (without which they should not go for election) that opposition should strive for are as follows: First, the EC must be separated from the PM's office and turned into a truly independent body. It should have its own financial authority, the authority to choose people to conduct the election and the power to call for law enforcing agencies, when necessary. Second, the president of the country -- also a party man -- should transfer some of his duties during the election for the sake of a balance in power. For example, the caretaker chief should hold the command over the armed forces. Third, half of the cabinet members of the caretaker government should be nominated by the opposition. And finally, the defense forces should be used, not with magistracy power, but as and when needed. In fact, this was the system till former president, Shahabuddin Ahmed, amended it. That, allegedly, went to suit the interest of one party at the cost of the other.

Without such reforms in the EC and caretaker government arrangements, participating in election would amount to committing suicide. We hope the opposition would not do it as we also hope that the present parties in power would accept them for their future and for the future of democracy in this country. Politicians, especially the opposition, should realize that it is the people's power that has decided the destiny of the nation all through our history. Be it the liberation war, the movement against the Ershad regime or the upsurge against the February 15, 1996, general election under the then BNP government -- all point to the power of the people in negating the devil's device.

It is a time when the combined opposition should respect people's power and mobilize them in realizing their demands. Ultimately, the movement might turn into a war between the people and the anti-people forces. History bears witness that in such a war the people always won, although temporarily they had to sacrifice a lot. The people should not only cry for free and fair votes but they should also organize themselves to ensure that their votes are not hijacked by hooligans. Let the day dawn on us when the debate over a free and fair election is dismissed for ever.

Abdul Bayes is Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University.