A couple of weeks ago Khaleda Zia warned the people about the conspiracy by the Awami League-led opposition to restore the 1972 constitution. Days later, she followed it up by making it clear that the head of the next caretaker administration would take office under the terms of the constitution. Earlier this week, emerging from a meeting with the visiting team from the Washington-based National Democratic Institute, Moudud Ahmed informed the country that he had told Tom Daschle and Mike Moore that the constitution would follow its own course.

Of course, the constitution of any country is a sacred document, and anyone who attempts to undermine it is liable to be considered guilty of criminality, even sedition. But, again, there are precedents in the world of a constitution being subjected to amendments that may be necessary from time to time. Those amendments are necessarily of a kind that are based on the compulsions of politics, and are therefore introduced and brought about by representative political classes.

In Bangladesh, an instance of the constitution being subjected to such change remains the fourth amendment that brought about a fundamental transformation in the form of government in January 1975. You can surely argue on the merits, or otherwise, of that change. Whether the change reflected a move from a democratic parliamentary system of government to a single party authoritarian administration is an issue that has been debated over and over again all these years. But what most certainly cannot be overlooked is the fact that the fourth amendment was brought about in a politically acceptable, legally justifiable manner by a political party which happened to be holding credible authority over the country at the time. You simply cannot walk away from such truths in as much as you cannot ignore the reality of the constitution going through a historically desirable change in 1991, by an elected legislature, restoring the primacy of parliamentary government following the fall of a long, debilitating autocracy.

The point here is that while the constitution is sacrosanct there is always room for improvements and readjustments in it through an acknowledgement of the realities prevalent at a given point in time. And in these times, when Begum Zia and her friends think a conspiracy is afoot to take Bangladesh back to the constitution as it was originally adopted in 1972, it makes sense to think that the conspiracy, if there is any, should really and truly succeed.

There are a good number of reasons why the 1972 constitution should make a comeback in our lives. For now, though, let it be enough to suggest that within the parameters of the 1972 constitution are inherent all the principles we worked upon when we went to war against Pakistan in 1971. A fully functional parliament, a democratic system resting on the principle of Bengali nationalism, a political platform that has no room for religious or communal politics, and an administrative system which will be subservient to parliament, et al, are the bedrock upon which the constitution of 1972 based itself. If we, as a people, are engaged in a deep-rooted conspiracy to bring that wonderful document back into our collective national life, nothing could be more charming, indeed nothing could be more magical.

Now, to that other issue raised by the prime minister and her law minister. They, and their friends in the government as well as outside, have been reminding us, in no uncertain terms, that the incoming caretaker administration will shape itself and then perform its responsibilities on the basis of the constitution. That would have been an unassailable argument had that small matter of the raising of the age bar of judges in service not come into the picture.

The age bar was shifted upward only to enable Justice KM Hasan to take charge of the interim administration before the next election. Now, that was a plainly dishonest thing to do, especially when the BNP-led right-wing coalition was fully aware of Hasan's political background. Or did Begum Zia, and her people, seriously think that the opposition had actually forgotten all about Hasan's affiliation with their party, and the loyalty with which he had served General Ziaur Rahman?

It is questions of this kind which, today, make it important that the reforms necessary to ensure a credible election are brought about through suitable amendments to the constitution. If the ruling circles are now determined to adhere to constitutionalism of a sort they are happy with, they ought to be told, again and again, that the country is not a piece of cake they can swallow in one easy gulp; and the constitution was not shaped to ensure a questionable electoral victory for those who happen to be the beneficiaries of the brigandage applied to this sacred document in the 1970s and 1980s.

In a country where some people with a dubious understanding of history have never felt any embarrassment about the murderous overturning of a constitutional government in August 1975, you really cannot expect any good to come from them or their friends. Begum Zia tells us, as if we were so many ignorant, disobedient children, that the constitution will be in play where the next caretaker government is concerned. Note that she and her friends have never made a point of suggesting that when the infamous Indemnity Ordinance of 1975 was incorporated into the constitution by the Zia military junta in 1979, it was a stab in the back for democratic politics in the country. These days, when you hear a lot of elderly, myopic men harangue you about Zia's contribution to the restoration of the democratic process in Bangladesh, you cannot but recall that the restoration was actually of communal politics, of the Pakistani brand we had sent scattering in 1971.

Moudud Ahmed informs the NDI delegation that in Bangladesh the constitution will take its own course. Well, in Bangladesh the natural course of the constitution was blocked by the two military rulers whom Moudud Ahmed has so far had opportunity to serve.

He has mentioned not a word about the deadly assaults on constitutional politics in the country.

General Zia left the secular structure of the constitution thoroughly mutilated in the sense that he effectively left Bengalis divided into religious communities, with one of these communities remaining dominant on the political canvas. In his time, General Ershad inflicted further blows at Bengali consciousness with his crude, unabashed patronisation of communal politics. And all those blows, remember, were planted, like so many poisonous seeds, into the constitution. They wormed their way into its vitals.

And yet Khaleda Zia and Moudud Ahmed speak to us of the preponderance of the constitution in politics. What constitution? When a constitution is subverted, through sheer force of arms, in the interest of men who have seized control of the state by illegal means, it needs to be taken back to the hallowed ground it once inhabited. If there are men and women in this soon-to-end government keen about prising out the 1971 proclamation of independence and replacing it with brash untruth, it becomes the sacred job of the country to push for change that will give us back our self-esteem as a people.

The prime minister accuses the Awami League of hypocrisy. How so? The party took part in elections conducted by an unconstitutional government in 1986, and yet, these days, is unwilling to go to the polling booths when a constitutional system is in place. Ah, but the prime minister carefully stays away from telling us that the very man who headed that unconstitutional government in 1986 is, today, the man she and her party would like to be beside them as the elections approach. As to the issue of why the BNP boycotted the 1986 elections, the beans about what the party meant to do, and what it actually ended up doing, are yet to be spilt.

The 1972 constitution did not provide for chief election commissioners who make a travesty of voters' lists, and then refuse to leave office. It was not a document that could mutate into so many articles and clauses which would directly repudiate the very nature of the political struggle Bengalis put up in the 1960s till the mid-1970s. In short, it was a vehicle for our passage to the future. It was not a rickety bus for a ride back into the dark.

Syed Badrul Ahsan is Executive Editor, Dhaka Courier.