But the truth of the matter is that since the election in 1991 things have been steadily regressing. The caretaker government system itself, as many have commented, is unique, not only in its ingenuity, but also in its underlying cynicism. And now, geniuses that we are, we have perfected a way of undermining even that check on partisanship.

What are the fundamentals of democracy? Simple in theory: each adult citizen gets to vote for his or her elected government, with the majority winning and constitutional safe-guards to protect minority rights and interests.

Of course, however, it is not nearly so simple in practice. There are lots of conventions and understandings which are necessary for democracy to function.

For instance, in most democracies even though the speaker controls the parliament, there is a modicum of fairness in the proceedings. Even though there may not be any rules on the books that can guard against partisan judges or civil servants or police being appointed, there are conventions on which the entire democratic edifice is founded, and it is hard for a nation to move forward when that commitment to democratic institutions and processes does not exist at the political level.

Similarly, on the other side of the aisle, a functioning democracy requires that the opposition voice its complaints in parliament and not shut down the country with coercive programs that are antithetical to democratic principles and ideals.

Thus, for all the trappings of democracy that we supposedly possess as a country, it seems perfectly apparent to me that democracy as a practice is something that the political classes of Bangladesh have not taken fully on board.

There are many fixes that can be suggested to try and make our democracy more functional. We could amend Article 70 of the Constitution to permit floor-crossing. We could introduce legislation to create a post of deputy speaker. We could institute Prof Yunus's idea of a share of the ministries going to the minority party. Hell, we could even put the Home Ministry under opposition control.

But the sad truth is that we would soon find a way to circumvent these measures as we have found a way to circumvent all other checks and balances -- including the caretaker government system -- we have put in place at one time or another to ensure that there are no abuses. What is missing -- and what we need to face up to -- is the political will on the part of the political classes to make it work.

It is not just the institutions and conventions with respect to democracy that are missing. Elections that are dependent on money and muscle-power are no elections worth the name, and no one denies that in Bangladesh these two factors play the deciding role.

Recently our last elected prime minister made an made an astonishing promise while on the campaign trail: "I would like to assure you that we will bring enormous development to your area if you vote for four-party."

The only thing that was more remarkable than this direct promise of quid pro quo was that, in the context of Bangladesh politics, it was totally unremarkable.

In fact, we do not have anything even resembling any level of transparency and accountability in terms of how decisions are made or funds allocated -- thus one can easily see that we have a real democracy deficit on our hands here.

Now, does this mean that the people do not want democracy or that they are somehow not ready for democracy or deserving of democracy.

By no means. Quite the opposite, in fact. High voter turn-out and consistently defensible decisions, by and large, in past elections, and a high level of voter awareness and involvement point to the fact that Bangladeshis are both sophisticated and responsible democrats.

To the extent that they might be disenchanted, it is because they know that they are not being heard by their political masters and that their options to make themselves heard are very limited.

There is no evidence to suggest that they are not "deserving" of democracy (what would constitute evidence of this, one wonders. George Bush?) or that they are not "ready" for it. The problem is not the people, the problem is with the political parties.

Now, the question arises: what can be done in this situation? What is an aggrieved citizen to do? Well, he or she can always form his or her own political party and there is certainly nothing stopping this. There are countless parties in Bangladesh other than the big two, some very successful.

But there are high barriers to entry. There is the money and, more crucially, the violence factor (witness the burning to the ground the homes of those who split from the BNP to form the LDP). There is the fact that all the institutions are arrayed against one. There is the fact that a new party cannot dispense largesse and patronage and thus buy people's votes. And there is the first-past-the-post electoral system.

So what do we need to do in Bangladesh to make democracy work? First, we certainly need some sort of institutional changes (e.g. president to be elected by super-majority) to make it work as well as it can given the constraints of our political culture.

But none of this will really bear much fruit until we ourselves change and begin to have some kind of respect for the systems and institutions and processes of democracy. This respect simply does not exist at this juncture in time.

I have written before that it is useful to look at our independence as four discrete phases, four republics, if you will: 1971-1975, 1975-1982, 1982-1991, and 1991 to the present.

Each period has been longer than the one preceding it, and more stable, if not always necessarily more democratic. But each period came with its in-built limitations that inevitably led to its end, and each time we had to go back to the drawing board as a nation to come up with something new.

Perhaps we have reached the end of the Fourth Republic and the time has come for us to put everything back on the table and start over.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.