Election has been postponed for the time being; it will be held sooner or later, but election for whom and at what cost? This is a question that one hears very often from concerned citizens these days.

The unhappy political developments, since the first caretaker government took over after the end of the tenure of the 4-party alliance government till a second caretaker government took office on January 13, and the consequent sufferings of the people and the loss incurred by the state, were all because of "election."

One alliance was hell-bent on holding it any cost, notwithstanding the many flaws that I am sure that they, too, were convinced were present in the instruments for holding the election, while the other alliance was equally determined to prevent it by any means. And they were quite willing to accept the ill consequences of their rigid position, which had all the potential for a physical confrontation between the two alliances.

For the two major political parties heading the two alliances it was the only way to either retain power or to regain power. The 4-party alliance was well aware of the consequences of an electoral defeat and thereby resorted to all available devices to hold on to it. The 14-party alliance, convinced that it would be prevented from regaining power by whatever means and manner possible, was unwilling to be part of a sham election. So "election" (read power) was the motivation behind their respective positions. The people and the country, the only important factors, counted for very little in their planning matrix.

The president has, at last, delivered the country from a grave situation by declaring emergency. Whatever may have been the motivation of the president, and there are many stories making the rounds, it was the only way that the two alliances could be offered a way out of the positions that they had driven themselves into, without possibly one or both of them destroying themselves, and the country too.

What one British politician said about democracy occurring once every five years in his country is applicable in the case of Bangladesh too, only more starkly so. There is very little democracy in anything else in Bangladesh, and no political party is willing to forego the chance to practice it once every five years. The political parties perceive the pentennial exercise at the ballot box as democratic. But is it? When the opposition that managed to get 41 percent of the votes abdicates its responsibility to represent the people who sent them to the parliament, and where the party in power does everything to make it difficult for the opposition to play the part of an effective and constructive opposition, where is democracy? What pains the voters is that election and democracy have been totally dehumanized.

It would make very little sense to the public if all the turmoil and the plight that they had to undergo, in the last three months in particular, result in nothing more than more of the same -- more of bad governance, more of corruption from the highest to the lowest crannies of power, crony capitalism, et al.

The election has been put off primarily because we don't have a proper voter list. But even were we to have a flawless and spotless voter list will it make any substantive difference to the people and the country at large? I think not, unless of course some very fundamental changes are made in our electoral system. Let me dwell on only one issue today, that of clean candidates.

For almost one year, the civil society has been urging upon the political parties to nominate clean candidates for the parliament. Through many meetings held almost all over the country, the idea was also conveyed to the people. Everyone, without any exception, was in full agreement with the demand that our representatives to the parliament must have integrity, and must be clean and honest. These meetings were also attended by the senior leaders of all the major political parties, who, too, agreed with the call for selecting honest candidates.

But what do we see in reality. It was disappointing to notice the utter disregard of popular demands by the major political parties. Reportedly, seats were allotted in exchange for money, and the two major parties have collected crores on that account. People with known criminal records, with dubious sources of income and with black money, are in the running for the highest elected post, to enter a hallowed house that will be desecrated by the presence of these arrant dishonest elements, who have money to buy their leaders to get nomination.

A leading Bengali daily has exposed the act of the major political parties, and their protests, though not surprising, are least convincing. People know better. So, at the end of the day, the country will spend crores of taka for electing people with questionable credentials. But I hasten to add, there are many honourable exceptions, too.

And see how the law was used by men with dishonourable intentions to put aside a splendid directive of the High Court that obligated a candidate to let the voters in on some of his or her personal information. That would allow voters to ascertain the competence of the candidate. A great disservice has been to done to the public by having this directive stayed.

Therefore, it seems a waste of money and effort and time to spruce up a voter list to hold an election that would make no substantive difference to the quality of life of the people, because of the poor quality of people we are forced to elect. One can get a flawless voters list, but it will hardly make our democracy flawless or functional. Unless we incorporate changes in the electoral system, we are destined to endure people with credibility gap deciding the fate of the country and legislating various laws, but whose presence in the parliament is unwarranted in the first place

There is nothing wrong with our politics; there is everything wrong with our politicians. We don't have to reform politics, but reform the politicians. If democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve, then surely we deserve better than what we have got so far. I think we ought to strive for good politicians and prove the saying, "a good politician under democracy is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar" wrong.

The author is, Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.