Democracy, as a system of governance, is acknowledged to have many flaws, but is still credited to be the best available system of running a statecraft, at least till the present times. And we, as a nation, after quite a long struggle and enormous sacrifice in man and material, have established that this country will run in a democratic, and not in any other, manner.

Why, then, have the Awami League and its partners in the Grand Alliance, professing democracy as their ideal for running the statecraft, suddenly decided to boycott the upcoming general elections? The matter definitely calls for a dispassionate analysis.

The considerably prolonged periods of stultifying authoritarian rule this nation went through, and the enormous sacrifices she made to restore democracy, qualify her for nothing short of an unadulterated democratic system of government at every sphere of the national life. Yet it was not to be.

The mass upsurge of the early nineties of the last century throwing off the military dictatorship of General Ershad, we thought, would establish a democratic order, and the start, despite some occasional hiccups, appeared quite well. But, unfortunately, it did not take our volatile politics long to sink into uncertainties, and at certain point of time, it appeared that the demise of our nascent democracy might as well be just around the corner.

The emergence of two major parties, or rather blocs, after the fall of the latest round of military dictatorship, gave rise to the hope that we would henceforth have an uninterrupted democratic system of government under a two-party system, the latter being a rarity in undeveloped countries.

The initial bickering between the two parties was assumed to be the teething problems of a fledgling democracy. But the bickering soon degenerated into an unfortunate war of attrition of sorts and the basic rules of democracy, i.e., treating the other with respect as a past and future ruler was thrown to the four winds. The winner-takes-it-all mentality engulfed all strata of the major parties, including their highest leadership, and an ambience of complete distrust swallowed the body-politic of the nation.

Fair and credible elections, so vital to democratic dispensation, naturally became a victim. It was sought to be salvaged, after a bitter political struggle, by means of institutionalising a system of caretaker government, through a constitutional amendment, under which a sufficiently elaborate system was put in place.

Under this system, hitherto untried anywhere else in the democratic world, the last retired chief justice of the Supreme Court would head such a caretaker government. He would be assisted by a ten-member council of advisers to be picked up from amongst the non-partisan people of hopefully impeccable track records.

The first two such elections won a large measure of acceptability, both nationally and internationally, owing to the genuine neutrality and administrative competence of the then presidents and the chief advisers. The present set-up, howsoever they may lay claims to, unfortunately does not qualify on either of those two essential counts, causing this present stalemate threatening the very continuation of a democratic system of government in the country.

Since politics, after all, is a contest for attaining and retaining power of running the statecraft, whether for welfare of the people or for feathering the rulers' own nests, it is only natural that the political party finding itself at any given time in power will try to prolong, if not perpetuate, its hold onto it by employing all available means at its disposal, subject of course to the rules of the game, and the electorate's acceptance or otherwise of what it employs for such a game. In a society with undeveloped state institutions and a largely uneducated electorate, some such political parties tend to venture too far out in its attempts to hold onto power.

Although the previous BNP and Awami League governments can hardly be credited to have fully followed the rules of the game, the latest spate of rule by Jamaat-BNP combine, has obviously exceeded all limits, whether in the areas of corruption, incompetence, or breaking of the rules of the game, or all. Politicisation of the bureaucracy, judiciary and almost all other state institutions has so much cornered its opponents that they find the political playing field of electioneering not only not level, but insurmountably steep for them to run. The litany of naming the disadvantages against them is perhaps too well-known to need any repetition here.

It was expected that the present caretaker government, although headed by a partisan president who has also not-too-subtly manoeuvred to land on the vital post of the chief adviser in addition, not to mention many other very important functions of the state, would rise to the occasion to ensure a level playing field to the major contestants, ensuring a smooth transition through a fair and credible election.

But the steps he has so far taken, and those not taken despite urgings to do so from all sensible quarters, appear to have forced the Grand Alliance to opt for an apparently self-defeating course of boycotting the election. Whatever the BNP-Jamaat combine says, it portends danger to democracy and an irreparable damage to the nation. The boycotting parties will most likely not sit idle while the president hands over the reins of power to BNP on a platter, but will go for a severe agitation, which is feared to be long enough to severely damage the economy and the polity of the country.

The president, almost by definition, is the last bastion of power to defend the Constitution and the country. He should rise above his so-far-displayed mindset of a skewed interpretation of it, and show true statesmanship to bring all the major contestants to the electoral battle by ensuring a level playing field. If it means re-scheduling the whole process of election, which it will surely do, he must do so extending the time for election. We would humbly remind the president that history remembers both its heroes and its villains. The situation, no doubt, is complicated enough, but not too complicated for the president not to see which way is heroic, and which is villainous.

The author is a former Member of the National Board of Revenue.