Shall we, the Aam-janata (general mass) of this country, rejoice on their talking to each other? At the end of the talk, will they only agree to disagree; or will they be able to save the nation from the political quagmire in which the country has been bogging down deeper with the passage of each day?

So contentious are the two leading political parties of our county that the two general secretaries of these parties took such a long lime to agree even on the venue for the talks to hold. AL even agreed to hold talks at the residence of an ambassador.

The frontline AL leaders, perhaps, did not know that premises of a foreign embassy or the residence of a foreign ambassador are treated as a foreign territory in a country. Such is the quality of our politicians that the mass people of this country may genuinely doubt whether the frontline BNP leaders or the leaders of any other political party not know that either.

We must sincerely thank the ambassadors of the "mighty" countries, for out of "love" of this country they have been meddling in our internal politics; thus often help us get things straight in our perpetual political chaos.

Say and hope, willingly or under the pressure of the invisible hand of God, the two general secretaries, to the relief of the whole nation, will come out successfully from the talks with a bunch of agreed electoral reforms. But will that end the political contention in this country on electoral reforms forever? I am afraid, that won't be the case, not at all.

We won't be that lucky. Whichever party or alliance wins the general elections to be held under the reforms will not leave any stone unturned during its next five year tenure in power to find out ways to frustrate and negate the reforms to make them win the next general election through unfair means. And being angered, the parties in the opposition will be raising clamour for another round of electoral reforms.

With full respect to the integrity of the last retired Supreme Court chief justice, the 14th amendment to the constitution, which extended the retirement age of the Supreme Court judges, may be cited here as one of the dire examples of how political party in power gets all out to negate any electoral reform previously reached to hold a free and fair election in the country. Issuance of thousands of firearm licenses in the year 2001 to the party henchmen by the political party on the eve of its leaving power to the caretaker government is another example of this kind.

In Bangladesh, we do not know how to be neutral for the sake of interests of the whole nation. Sacsena, who was Indian chief election commissioner (CEC) a few years back, and who was a terror to the unethical politicians of that country, certainly voted for a political party in the general elections held under him; but nobody ever raised a question about his neutrality as a CEC.

PN Sangma, an ethnic Garo from Netrokona district of Bangladesh, later migrated to India, was elected speaker of the Loc Sava by the National Democratic Alliance (NDC) led by BJP, while this alliance was in power in that country. As the speaker, while in the parliament, he never showed brazen partiality toward the NDC.

The present Lok Sava speaker, Mr. Chacrawarty, is another example as to how to remain neutral while presiding over a session of a parliament. Speaker of our sangsad, Jamiruddin Sircar, or any speaker of our previous parliaments, could not forget for a moment, while presiding over a session, that he was a party man.

None of the general elections held in Bangladesh till now under a political party in power were free and fair; each one of then was marred with extreme rigging, manipulation of election results and what not practiced by the political party/alliance in power.

If India can hold one after another free and fair general elections under political governments, then why can't we do so in Bangladesh? Because here in Bangladesh, power has turned into a means of minting money, so every corrupt person wants to be in power by any means.

We need to get rid of the caretaker government system to hold free and fair elections, sooner the better; otherwise it will be very difficult to keep the image of our Supreme Court -- the institution which still draws some respect from the populace; while almost all other government institutions have lost their respect in the eyes of the ordinary citizens.

The dialogue is progressing and so far so good. But we, the ordinary citizens of this country, cannot feel gratified only knowing the two general secretaries are talking in "cordial atmosphere."

We want they reach a consensus on political reforms and sign an agreement that none of their parties will ever try to negate the reforms reached upon whenever their parties will be in power. We know it's very easy, in our present political culture, to break such an agreement, still we want that.

The politicians of this country must understand, if they don't behave, the unconstitutional force will feel encouraged to meddle in state affairs. And again we will have to start from the zero.