Such expectation assumes heightened significance when seen against the background of the inclusion of the top-most bureaucrat of the preceding caretaker regime in the present council of advisers. A point of additional importance is the fact that the afore-mentioned former bureaucrat has been entrusted with the onerous responsibility of steering the advisory council committee pertaining to Home and Establishment matters.

One does not have to be a pundit to understand that the two portfolios of Home and Establishment, retained by the president-cum-chief advisor, have profound and far-reaching impact on impartial election management. Past experience substantiates that.

Given the objective situation prevailing in the country, including the not-very-stable health of the president-cum-chief advisor, it is strongly likely that the advisor steering the above-mentioned committees on Home and Establishment will have a dominant share in all the decisions taken thereto.

The wise advisor, who is well-known for his integrity and erudition, and has the unique advantage of real experience in a similar exercise in the near past, has already radiated confidence by pragmatic utterances in an atmosphere charged with disbelief, mistrust, and acrimony.

This is despite the fact that there are complaints from the business community that their representation is lacking in the advisory council although they were represented in the two previous caretaker governments and the apparently less-than-charitable comment that women's voice has found extraordinary respectability in the corridors of power.

The optimists will continue to pin hope on the sagacity of our present guardians, though not all of them, but the question that bothers enquiring minds is the magnitude of political and administrative dissimilarities between now and 2001. Delving into the specifics, one may see that there was almost a Hitchcockian dimension to the swearing-in ceremony of the chief adviser and all our simple folks had to guess about the appointee until the penultimate moment. This may not be the case for those smart guys who were privy to the facts behind the facts.

Compare this scenario with the lot of the immediate past chief adviser who had plenty of time to do his homework and planning before the actual assumption of the exalted office. In fact, he entered his official residence days before the swearing-in as part of an apparent administratively convenient measure. No exception was taken and no eyebrows were raised and the matter went unnoticed. Compare this with the agitated comment of the senior-most adviser of the present council or the less-than-tactful modus-operandi of two advisers who went to pass a message to the leader of a major political alliance on being directed by the president-cum-chief adviser.

Politicians and distinguished lawyers belonging to the two sides of the political divide are making vociferous demands for the resignation of three advisers, even before the latter are securely placed in their new assignments. This, however, is not unexpected as some political observers have commented that the present council of advisers is largely comprised of nominees of political parties and that the immediate past government is the prime beneficiary. The previous caretaker government was not tainted with such insidious remarks, at least at the formative stage.

The fact of the matter is that the assumption of the office of the chief adviser this time has been mired in controversy and confusion of different dimension. A major political alliance has initially declined to accept the party-appointed president as chief adviser and subsequently announced a conditional welcome. It would appear that we have been willy-nilly thrown into a bizarre situation where the head of the state and the head of the government have been placed on probation. Erudite lawyers have likened the senior-most adviser to a potential handicapped new-born requiring intensive observation.

The previous chief adviser enjoyed his job and went into substantive action from day one, may be even before that, according to his detractors. There was no reservation about his bona fides and locus standi and he traveled adequately to all the divisional headquarters along with the necessary and relevant entourage. He even found time to visit his home town and prayed at his parent's grave.

Against that scenario, consider the apprehended predicament of the present incumbent who is believed to be uncomfortably wearing two hats. Already there is a demand by a major political alliance to effectively separate the office of chief adviser from that of the president wherein, it has been alleged, there are scheming and partisan beneficiary functionaries who are breathing heavy over the shoulders of a weary chief executive.

The president-cum-chief adviser is and will be under constant pressure to accede to various demands and counter-demands regarding posting and transfer of regulatory and enforcement personnel. Action in this regard has to be taken before the declaration of election schedule after publication of which the Election Commission has to be consulted for their concurrence regarding posting and transfer of election related personnel.

As a series of actions have to be taken within a very short time under pressing and trying circumstances and opposing pulls, the question is whether the chief executive would be able to work for long hours without detriment to his health. Such fears would not normally be expressed but for the health bulletins issued by competent authority in the recent past when doubts crept in as to whether the then president was actually in charge. The president, by all accounts, was prescribed very limited activity.

Therefore, question as to whether the 76 year-old president has regained enough energy to withstand the mounting pressures of a nearly beleaguered office is a central one. A pertinent query would be whether the chief adviser's office, that is, the PMO, would remain under-utilized during the incumbency of this caretaker government. The physical utilization of two offices is likely to dispel fears of biased action in as much as the two identities of the caretaker chief needs to be displayed prominently.

The caretaker government of 2001 did not have to face the contentious issues of reconstituting the Election Commission and the correction of voter list as demanded by a major political alliance. Therefore, its lease of 90 days did not encounter major obstacles in the way of realizing its principal objective, that is, the holding of peaceful, fair, and impartial election.

This time, the Election Commission displays a combative posture as opposed to the demands of its reconstitution and the correction of voter list. The suspicion is that the incumbents at the commission including the controversial chief election commissioner have become disturbingly intransigent after receiving assurances of support from the immediate past government.

The ground reality is that the Election Commission, the body which is constitutionally mandated to hold the national election peacefully, fairly, and impartially, does not enjoy the confidence of major political parties representing nearly half the electorate. So when the referee is disowned by half the players, as very rightly pointed out by an adviser of the present caretaker government, it is strongly likely that peaceful and fair election may be a casualty without last minute resolution of the issue.

The pretext of shortage of time to correct the voter list as reported by the Election Commission to the caretaker government is an untenable position, as national election on the basis of an admittedly flawed voters list is not acceptable. The doctrine of necessity can help us tide over the problem.

Unabated institution-bashing over the years that involved serious denigration of service ethos has brought us to the present deplorable state of affairs where the people do not have faith in the impartiality and neutrality of the public servants and politicians are deemed incapable to fairly effect changes in the democratic transition.

In a civilized democratic society, leaders are supposed to build institutions which in turn produce leaders to sustain the pluralist dispensation. Unfortunately, this has not been our experience. Societal guardians like the public service, judiciary, and the Election Commission have not received the due honour and importance.

Our present predicament has been caused by our servility and thus we would need men and women of substance and strong moral fibre to stall the slide downwards and keep hope alive.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a former Secretary and IGP.