Without doubt these are uncertain times wherein every move of the chief executive is an action and he is the main attraction. However, there are credible grounds to question if some of the recent moves of the caretaker chief are of his own volition or there are elements in the shadows who are pulling string in the affairs of the state. A definite and specific cause of concern is the reported presence of the press secretary to the Hon'ble President in the meeting of the council of advisors. This fact assumes significance because when political secretaries of the past two political governments enjoying the status of state minister of the government were not allowed in the cabinet meeting, how the press secretary of the Hon'ble President being a political appointee of the previous political government finds entry in such meeting?

Al least three utterances and actions of the caretaker chief indicate that he does not have the benefit of legally and administratively appropriate advice. The two utterances regarding the alleged change into presidential type of government and the so-called uncalled for comments about the activities of personal staff of the President were, at the least, unfortunate. The president was seen reading out from a prepared text and thus one would assume that he was fully aware of the ramifications of his comments. However, the subsequent half-hearted and unclear comments from the President's office on the literal meaning or otherwise of the relevant portion didn't appear as a satisfactory explanation for tiding over the resulting controversy. One has to bear in mind that the present parliamentary form of government was the result of a historical struggle that toppled an autocratic regime. One hopes that comments that substantially offend the democratic sensibilities of our polity are not uttered in solemn formal meeting. One also cannot be oblivious of the fact that the President was addressing the secretaries to the government in his capacity as the caretaker chief performing the functions of the Prime Minister.

There was no explanatory comment from the authority about the alleged inappropriateness pertaining to observation with reference to activities of the personal staff of the President. It perhaps dawned on them that the President's personal staff, on account of their drawing pay from public exchequer are subject to public criticism and that their services are not of a domestic nature.

Thus far the most indiscreet act of the caretaker government has been the Home Ministry directive regarding the decision to deploy armed forces personnel for law and other duties and accordingly alerting all field administrative units. The late night subsequent announcement from the same Ministry clarifying that such deployment would be considered should that become necessary appears ludicrous and speak volumes about the indecisiveness of the vital regulatory outfit. While nobody would attach any importance to the exculpatory comments of Home Secretary and Law Secretary about the fiasco as it appeared in the newspapers, the fact remains that the buck stops at the President's place who holds the home portfolio. The question is, must we indulge in palpably indefensible acts?

The divisiveness and pernicious polarisation that has marked the Bangladeshi society for the last couple of years should convince even the incorrigible optimist about the inevitability of a very stormy episode for the caretaker government of late 2006. By now we have sufficient testimony to the potentials of that premonition. It is time, therefore, to prove the pessimists wrong who say that this caretaker administration is a non-starter from day one because the head of the arrangement is partisan, being the appointed nominee of a political party that is at loggerhead with its adversary. Some such pessimists have likened the President's assumption of the office of neutral and non-partisan caretaker Chief Adviser to that of a marriage of a boy to his first cousin sister's daughter which is legally permissible but socially extremely undesirable in our society.

Legal experts have been of the considered view that the President has not conscientiously exhausted all the constitutional options regarding the assumption of the charge of the office of chief adviser and that he has acted in indecent haste to satisfy his benefactors. Even the most lenient commentator would accuse the President of resorting to an irregular step which, though not strictly illegal, has placed us in a very disconcerting situation.

How tall our President will stand in fulfilling his constitutional obligations for facilitating the country's democratic progression will depend on his good judgment and coming to terms with the enormity of the issue. However, concerned citizens are of the considered view that he will earn the gratitude of our nation, by first of all effectively prevailing upon the chief Election Commissioner to step down. There are people belonging to both sides of the political divide who can really advise him on being truly effective. The Chief Election Commissioner has broken the trust of the exalted constitutional office by not speaking the truth and not showing due deference to the directives of the apex court.

The president-cum-caretaker chief has to take some immediate administrative steps like change in key appointments. A guide in this direction is the measures adopted by the previous caretaker administration. The present Home Secretary who has already bungled in a very sensitive matter should be replaced forthwith and asked to explain his conduct. The establishment division should have a dynamic secretary who can organise things in tune with the demand of a visible neutral dispensation and is not himself a subject of some controversy. District level changes in general administration including executive magistracy and police should not take further time.

The President should be seen to be more a caretaker chief and therefore, he should have a new military secretary if he has not already appointed one in addition to other complements of the Prime Minister's office where he should perform the substantive functions. The chief of National Security and Intelligence should be replaced like the last caretaker administration did and there should be a Press Secretary in the caretaker office. The experience of July-August 2001 is there to suitably follow.

We would do well to remember that the institution of caretaker government is in serious risk of being irreparably discredited if sufficient corrective actions are not taken to restore people's confidence in the efficacy and impartiality of public offices. In order to create an atmosphere of trust and credibility, the caretaker chief should be able to shake off all ambivalence and actions must demonstrate that he is the boss. There must not be any doubt that behind-the-scene beneficiaries of last political regime are having a dominant say in major decisions. Actions must be well thought and not negated by subsequent act. The shadows of the immediate past political government, suspected to be active in the corridors of power and its periphery, must be effectively banished from the decision making process so that a level playing field is created for holding a credible election.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a former Secretary and IGP.