Once again the President made his statement keeping his advisors totally in the dark. Even though some of the advisors met him informally only hours before, he preferred to hide the fact of his imminent statement from them. It is to be noted that since the 14-party grand alliance decision to boycott the election the President and Chief Advisor did not hold any meeting of his advisory council. When most people in the country consider the present situation to be a major political crisis, the President does not consider it to even merit a meeting of his council of advisors. It may be noted that the only reason for which the caretaker government concept has been incorporated in our constitution is to hold a free and fair election.

This is not the moment to delve into who did what to whom and why. While these questions need to be answered at some point in the future, the far more urgent task is to find a way out of the immediate political impasse and hold a free and fair election participated by all. Our failure to find a solution will put our democracy under severe strain, a strain we are foolish, one may say even suicidal, to put it through.

Today some stark facts stare at us in the face. First, there has to be an election to get a new government that will reflect the public will. Second, that election has to be free, fair and widely participated, which in the present context means that the AL-led grand alliance will have be brought within its fold. Third, there is a constitutional binding for holding elections within 90 days that needs to be respected, without which there will be a violation of the constitution. Fourth, any violation of the constitution is dangerous and fraught with other dangers that cannot be good for democracy and rule of law.

If we are to achieve the above within the ambit of our constitution the only way out is for the Supreme Court (SC) to permit a time extension, say for three months, to hold a free and fair election. It can be done through an appeal by the Election Commission through a reference by the President seeking the SC's advice. Here we appeal to the President to reconsider his position and explore possibility of a SC reference. We are heartened by reports that Prof. Iajuddin has given a green signal to his advisors to talk to both BNP and AL for a way out of the impasse. Though this totally contradicts his statement of the previous night, yet we are happy that the President has hinted that he is open to some new initiatives to solve the crisis.

Before we discuss in details the possible course of action, we need to clarify a few things. Why should the SC, one may argue, grant extra time for elections just because the AL and its allies refuse to join the coming one. Should we allow one group to hold the nation hostage and force our hand in playing their game? Well, if the situation was as simple as that we would have no qualms in siding with this argument. If the malafide of the 14-party's action was obvious then there would not have been the quantum of public support that the boycott move, in reality, enjoys. There are sufficient grounds, known to all as we have written about them a thousand times, concerning the activities of the caretaker government, especially of its chief, and the role of the election commission, especially with the present voters list (which is yet to be made public with just two weeks left for the election. This is a clear violation of the constitution), to give the 14-party's boycott some credence. Whether one supports the move or not, there is no denying the fact that with the AL and all its allies withdrawing from the polls its acceptability has come into serious question. Most importantly such a one-sided poll will not give us either peace or a credible government that we so desperately need. We'll be back to where we started from --debilitating political unrest that has done so much harm to our economy. A one-sided election will do nothing to quell the political rivalry that has been our bane for all these years.

The bottom line is the position of the so-called grand alliance cannot be brushed aside and ignored without serious damage to our democratic process and to our global acceptability and standing as a democratic nation. Nor can we, or should we, sidestep the constitution and its 90-day binding. The way out, therefore, is to go to the Supreme Court with an appeal for time extension. Grounds for this move is simple. Election must represent people's will, which can only happen if everybody participates. A one-sided election will only further fuel the social tension and political violence that will no doubt lead to further damage to our economy and the prospect of improving our economic lot.

The move for Supreme Court's (SC) reference has to be taken by the President and Chief Advisor. Given his earlier referred to statement one may seriously doubt whether he will do so. But then his 'green signal' to the advisors yesterday rekindles our hope admittedly with lots of plaguing our hope. It is our expectation that the reality of the situation will override whatever other proclivity he may have. The President must understand that the future of democracy, political stability, peaceful transfer of power, getting a truly representative government acceptable to all (which can only come from a free, fair and credible election), the chance to move forward with strength and unity -- all depend on the Chief Advisor making such a move.

However any move by the President/Chief Advisor must be preceded by a dialogue between the two principal rivals, which again he can bring about. Though the record of BNP--AL dialogue is not very encouraging, yet there is no alternative to it. Here we urge the two political rivals to think of the nation and its 14 crore people and not just of their greed for power and obsession for the benefits that it brings.

If and when the reference to the SC comes, we think the honourable judges may consider some related issues. It cannot just extend the time of election for the two rivals to waste it again on bickering. So it may consider giving some guidance as to how we can move forward. We think, as it did in the case of CEC MA Aziz, where specific guidance was given as to how the voter list should be prepared, here also the SC may specify steps needed to hold a free and fair election. For voter list the SC can insist on the proper implementation of the existing High Court order. It can also vacate its earlier stay order on disclosure of candidates' vital personal information. The SC can also call a group of eminent jurists, former chief justices and constitutional experts as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to put their collective wisdom together to serve the nation at this critical juncture.

In this connection, we must recall the fact that three writ petitions were placed before the High Court, which were 'stayed' by the Honourable Chief Justice (CJ). These included one that dealt with whether the President's taking over as Chief Advisor was done according to the provision of the constitution. If the CJ had allowed the petitions to go ahead and if there were clear pronouncements then much of the present day debate could have been avoided. A clear judgment on whether the president's becoming CA was constitutionally correct or not could have buried much of today's debate.

From what little we understand of the law and of our constitution, we think there is something called the spirit of the law and of the constitution, as against the letter of it. For novices like us it is perhaps the letter of the law that attracts us most. But for the more learned and the wise such as our highest judiciary, it is both the letter and the spirit of the law and of the constitution that matter. One may even say that sometimes the 'spirit' may become far more important than the 'letter' in upholding the fundamental values, such as 'genuine and universal public participation' in electing our leaders, on which our political system stands.

If the 90-day limit is important, so also is the fact that we must have an election that brings a stable, acceptable and popular government in place reflecting public will. In the past while both the BNP and AL questioned the elections they respectively lost, yet they, though grudgingly, accepted the results and the government it brought to power simply because the elections were not one-sided. The only one-sided one in 1996 had to be redone. That one-sided election could also be somewhat justified because holding it was the only legal way to institute the caretaker system that the AL, Jamaat, and others demanded at that time. There is no similar justification to go for another one-sided election today. So then, why hold such an election and at such a huge expense to the exchequer? An election that will only divide us further, lead to more hatred, more violence and inevitably to more bloodshed. Can anybody in their right mind want it, leave alone the learned judges of our highest courts?

Today we need our supreme judiciary to rescue us from this political impasse. It may be said why should the highest courts get involved in political issues. Normally this should not be done. But these are not normal times, and the nation really has nowhere to go but seek 'light' from our learned judges. On many occasions in the past our judges came to our rescue. We recall with pride the role played by Chief Justice Shahabuddin, in 1991, in leading us through the uncharted waters of a untried caretaker government system and helping us to move away from autocracy to democratic rule. So also now our highest judiciary and especially our Chief Justice has to pronounce on the legality of the 90 day limit and show us a way out. If the 90 day limit is inviolable, then by all means lets go for the election, knowing that we are heading for endless political conflict but at least with the satisfaction that our constitution provided no way out. But, if there is a way out, let our Supreme Judiciary show the way.

Please rise to the occasion with no other interest but that of the Nation and its 14 crore people at heart. We are so desperately in need of a legal way out, remembering that the ultimate purpose of any legal framework is to establish justice, fair play and peace and harmony in society.